The authors of traditional Vietnamese chronicles paid close attention to chronological information when compiling their works, and already in ancient times they developed clear rules for submitting this information [see, for example, Daivet shy ki toan thy, 2002, p. 72 et seq.]. This was due to the fact that, according to local historiographers, in this way it was possible, even without introducing special comments, to give their own assessment of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a particular dynasty or ruler1help strengthen the authority of individual " good "rulers by artificially increasing the duration of their rule by reducing the duration of the rule of"bad" ones rulers2.

The chronological heading of each weather article in the Vietnam chronicles consists of the lunar year designation, the name of the ruler or the name of the era of government, and the ordinal number of the year of government or the era of government. In addition, the main element was always accompanied by a comment (in small characters in a double line), which indicated the data (dynasty, name of the ruler, era of government and ordinal number of the year) of the Chinese emperors who ruled at that time, and not all of them, but only those with whom the Vietnamese maintained relations, as well as information on changes in these parameters (introduction of new eras of government, coming to power of new sovereigns) for both Vietnamese and sometimes Chinese states. In the same commentary, a double line, even before chronological information about the Chinese, also contained information about Vietnamese rulers, whom historiographers considered illegal. Thus, during periods of interruptions in the "legitimate succession of power" [see: Daivet shy ki toan thy, 2002, p. 167, note 125], including a significant part of the era of "Northern Dependence", the main element of the chronological heading of the weather article consisted only of the designation of the astronomical year according to the lunar calendar.

No less complicated was the procedure for calculating the years of the reign of a particular Vietnamese ruler. If the reign ended in autumn or winter, then this year was added to the term of the departed ruler, if in spring or summer-to the term of the newly ascended throne. If, according to the historiographer, there was a usurpation of power, then everything was done to reduce the term of the "usurper" and increase the term of the "legitimate sovereign". Thus, the chroniclers counted a whole year, who ruled only three days in the tenth moon of the year at-ti (1005) and was killed by his brother Le Chung-tong from the Early Le dynasty (980 - 1009), taking the previous months from his father,

1 In this way, the fundamental principle of composing historical works in East Asian countries was realized - the use of "hidden, hidden instructions" [for more information, see: Complete Collection..., 2002, pp. 163-164, approx. 100].

2 According to Vietnamese chroniclers, the longer the emperor reigned, the more reason there was to believe that he met the requirements of the "Heavenly Mandate" and enjoyed the favor of Heaven.

page 118
not his usurper brother. And the" usurper " Zuong Nyat Le of the Chang dynasty (1225-1400), who ruled from the 25th day of the fifth moon of the year ki-zau (1369) to the 15th day of the eleventh moon of the year kan-tuat (1370), did not get even one year: his time was distributed among the deceased predecessor Chan Zu-tong and the overthrow of Zuong Nyat Le-Chan Nge-tong (Daivet shy ki toan thy, 2002, p. 72).

In addition, to emphasize the attitude of the authors of the chronicle, and therefore in most cases the entire state, to the legality or illegality of a particular dynasty or ruler, the main title of its chapters was also used. If the dynasty was "legitimate", the title was written in large characters, if "illegal" - in small characters in a double line with the addition of the large character fu (, "appendix") to the title. There were also quite stable rules for describing the rule of emperors, on the one hand, and just the rulers-vyhong (tiyhau or, in Chinese, zhuhou)-on the other. Thus, according to the rules for tihau, the years of the Early Li dynasty (541 - 602) were described, although its founder, Li Bon, proclaimed himself emperor in 544 and even introduced his own era of rule.

These principles of providing chronological information were summarized and formulated by one of the most authoritative Vietnamese historiographers of the 15th century, Ngo Shi Lien, who anticipated his edition of the main Vietnamese chronicle "The Complete Collection of Historical Notes of Daiviet" with a special preface " Explanation [to the rules] compilation of the "Complete collection of historical notes of Daiviet"". In the 17th century, these rules were supplemented by a historiographical commission headed by Pham Kong Chy (Daivet shy ki toan thy, 2002, pp. 71-76).

Increased attention to the problem of fixing chronology in official chronicles, giving it an "ideological" character, gave rise to numerous discussions that have been going on for several centuries and have not subsided to this day, and led to a pluralism of points of view. The main question is which dynasty (ruler) should be considered "legitimate" and which should be considered "illegal"; which should be considered Vietnamese and which should be considered Chinese. The earliest complete concept on this subject that has come down to us is that of the 15th century by the same Ngo Shi Lien. His point of view was largely formed under the influence of the Mine wars, during which Daivet (then the name of Vietnam) lost its independence again for twenty years, and has a pronounced patriotic character. He assumed that not only the Red River Delta and the surrounding mountainous areas were originally Vietskian lands, but also a significant part of modern southern China, in particular the provinces of Guangdong, Guangxi and some other territories that were part of the ancient Namwiet Kingdom. Based on this postulate, Ngo Chih Lien considered as the Vietnamese ruler Shu (Thuk-Anzyong-Youong), a Chinese who conquered the Vietese lands in the third century BC, and the Zhao Dynasty (Chieu-Wo-te Chieu Da and his descendants), whose founder-a former Qin general-created his own state in southern China, taking advantage of the turmoil caused by the fall of the House of Qin, and in fact, like his predecessor from the Shu family, he annexed the Vietskian lands and added them to his empire.

Later, in the era of "northern dependence", which largely thanks to the efforts of Ngo Chi Lien looks in the chronicle as a continuous struggle of the Vietnamese people for separation from China, he singled out in independent sections only those rulers of the newly created Chinese province who set and tried to solve the problem of turning Vietnam into an independent state. At the same time, the greatest respect was paid to the ruler Cheung Chak (40-43 AD) precisely because she set the task of restoring independence in all the lands of ancient Namviet, and not just in the Red River Delta, as it was after her. Of the Chinese governors of the Vietnamese territories, an exception was made only for Shi Nyiep (late II-early III centuries AD), who "...although he held the [post of] viceroy-shaw, but he ruled as he should.

page 119
they rule the tiyhou kingdoms. All the people of our state called him vyong. His tenure as viceroy was nothing more than a mere formality, but the nobility and power of this government were such that all the barbarian mans bowed before his prestige, and he was in no way inferior to Wu - [de from the family of] Chieu" [Complete Collection..., 2002, p. 73].

Referring to the Early Li dynasty, Ngo Shih Lien proclaimed the legitimate successor of its founder, Li Bon-Chieu Quang Phuc, who, although not his relative, but for a long time actively and effectively fought against the Chinese troops, while the founder's brother and his formal heir, Li Thien Bao, hid and did not take part in the struggle. The author of the chronicle also placed emphasis on other historical figures, clearly defining and fixing for posterity which of them is a usurper and who is not. Largely due to the merits of this chronicler, the text of the chronicle already in the XV century.there were sections concerning the legendary Vietnamese rulers Kinzyong-vyong, Lak-long-quan and Hung-Vyong, who previously, in all likelihood, were not considered historical figures, and stories about them were recorded only in folklore records. The same can be said about Chieu Vьетt vонng (Chieu Quang PhкеC), mentioned above, which did not appear either in Chinese sources or in earlier Vietnamese chronicles. It was Ngo Chi Lien who first made a general division of the entire history of the country into two unequal parts, distributing the materials in his chronicle into the sections of External Annals and Main Annals and drawing the border between them until 939, when the house of Ngo came to power and the Vietas were finally able to form their stable independent state again.

Up to the XVIII century. Ngo Shi Lien was an unquestionable authority on these issues, and subsequent historiographers, most notably Wu Kuin (1511) and members of the historiographical commissions Pham Kong Chy (1665) and Le Hee (1697), mostly confirmed his conclusions and conclusions and used the methods he had already developed to identify" usurpers " and "usurpers". counting down the years of the reigns of the emperors who came to power after the XV century. The only exception is the widely accepted translation by Wu Quin of the boundary between the Outer and Main Annals for 968, when the Dinh Dynasty came to power in the country, whose rulers, unlike the rulers of Ngo, declared themselves emperors and introduced government mottos.

Attempts to radically revise the views of Ngo Chi Lien were made in the XVIII century, and most of them are directly related to the name of the outstanding historian Ngo Thi Chi. In his private chronicle Viet si thieu an ("Notes on the Milestones of the History of Viet") [Ngô Thòi Sy, 1960], he strongly rejected many of the conclusions of his predecessor. Thus, he considered the Zhao Dynasty purely Chinese and excluded it from the Vietnamese dynastic lists, extending the era of"Northern Dependence". Shi Nyiep was reduced by him to a mere Chinese governor. Chieu Quang Phuc and Lee Thien Bao switched places: Chieu Quang Phuc, according to Ngo Thi Shih, no matter what feats he performed, after the expulsion of the Chinese, he was simply obliged to cede the throne to the rightful heir - a relative of Lee Bon and, without doing so, committed usurpation of power.

All these innovations were also reflected in the official Vietnamese historiography of the late 18th century under the Taishong Dynasty. The main author of the chronicle, Taishonov, son of Ngo Thi Shih-Ngo Thi Nyam, based his work not on the previous state chronicle, but on his father's private work, preserving both his views on the country's history in structure and commentary ( biên, 1997).

Finally, in the last general chronicle of Vietnam, written already in the second half of the 19th century, despite the strict attitude of denying everything that was done under the Taishons, the authors took an intermediate position with regard to many political and chronological problems. For example, they re-included the House of Zhao in the list of Vietnamese dynasties, but refused to recognize Shi Nyiep as an independent ruler (Kham thông giam , 1998).

page 120
An analysis of contemporary Vietnamese historical literature shows that there is still no single point of view on the issues outlined above. Thus, in some dynastic lists, the House of Zhao appears as the Vietnamese dynasty [Niên Nam, 1970, p. 16], in others, the period starting from 179 BC (the estimated date of the capture of Aulak by Namviet) is attributed to the era of "Northern Dependence" [; Bình, Linh,, 1976, p. 356;, 1993 Third, it is difficult to understand from the text what dynasties Zhao belongs to [ Cu', Hùng, 2003, p.26].

The above is intended to illustrate the difficulty of determining at least the list of rulers and dynasties to be included in chronological tables. The situation is compounded by proposals to change the traditional chronology by some contemporary Vietnamese and Russian authors. Thus, chronological tables sometimes include revolts of the local population against foreign rule (especially during the period of "Northern Dependence") or local authorities [ Bình, Linh, , 1976, p. 356 et seq.], or the rule of the so-called "hidden dynasties" of Chinese governors of Vietnamese territories, when the powers of the governor were transferred to the state for several generations. within the same family by inheritance 3.

The Vietnamese system of government mottos was in many ways similar to the Chinese one. The first eras of rule in Vietnam could have appeared under the emperors of the Zhao Dynasty (at least the first two rulers of this dynasty bore the title of emperor [Poln. Sobr...., 2002, p. 205, note 1]. However, for China itself at that time, the eras of government were a new matter, so it is possible that before the distant past, the first two rulers of the Zhao Dynasty These innovations did not reach the South. The first known era of rule in Vietnam was introduced in 544 by the founder of the Early Li Dynasty (541 - 602), Li Bon. But already his successors were afraid of such an insulting procedure for the Chinese, and when they ascended the throne, they called themselves only Vyong (Wang). So did the representatives of the first independent ruling house of the Ngo after the period of "Northern Dependence" (939-967), who did not claim the imperial regalia. Again, the mottoes of government in Vietnam began to be used from 970, when the founder of the Dinh dynasty (968 - 980), Dinh Bo Lin, was proclaimed emperor, and then this ritual in virtually unchanged form lasted until the fall of the last imperial dynasty of Vietnam in 1945.

The transition from one era of government to another in Vietnam largely depended on the circumstances in which it took place. If it was a change of era within the same emperor's reign, then it was virtually immediate, as it was usually due to favorable or unfavorable events or omens that required a new emperor with a new name to be immediately presented to Heaven. The same can be said for cases of succession during the lifetime of the previous ruler to his successor, not to mention violent overthrow or murder. On the contrary, when an heir came to the throne after the decent death of his predecessor and at the same time was completely legitimate and had no serious alternatives, the previous era of rule often lasted until the end of the year. This demonstrated the "filial piety" that was one of the main tenets of neo-Confucian ideology. So, Emperor Le

3 Initially, these methods are intended to minimize the duration of Vietnam's stay under foreign domination. But they don't look quite right. It is not clear on what basis the conclusion is based that governors who were part of" hidden dynasties " pursued a more independent policy than governors who did not form such dynasties. In addition, the practice of forming "hidden dynasties" in China on the territory of individual provinces (especially remote ones) was quite common at all times. Thus, throughout the Ming Dynasty, a similar dynasty existed in Yunnan Province, but this in no way could indicate the independence of this province in any form or claim to it.

page 121
Thanh-tong of the Late Le dynasty died at the very beginning (30th day of the first moon) of the year dinh-ti (1497), but his son ordered that the era of his father's rule (Hong-duc) continue until the end of this year, i.e., in fact, another eleven moons. The emperor of the Nguyen dynasty (1802 - 1945), Nguyen Hong Zat, who ascended the throne on the 27th day of the sixth moon of the year Kui Mui (1883), after almost 37 years of rule by his adoptive father Ty - duc (1847-1883), decided that his era would not be a new one. The government (Hiep-hoa) will start from next year's zyap-than (1884). However, on the 30th day of the tenth moon of the same kui-mui year, he was deposed and soon forced to commit suicide, so as a result, his era of rule did not last a single day.

In general, the Vietnamese system of posthumous temple names of emperors was very similar to the Chinese one. It differed only in the fact that their sequence in different dynasties (with the exception of the last Nguyen dynasty) often coincided. It was not immediately clear how to assign such names in Vietnam. As a result, for example, the first emperor of the Early Le dynasty (980-1009) was posthumously named (and this is recorded in all chronicles) Le Dai-han, although dai-han is not a temple name at all, but a special term - "the late emperor", which his successor had to call in his edicts before assigning the actual temple name.

list of literature

Daivyet shy ki toan thy (Complete collection of historical notes of the Daivyet), Vol. 1 / Translated from the khanvyet by K. Yu. Leonov and A.V. Nikitin with the participation of V. I. Antoshchenko, M. Yu. Ulyanov, A. L. Fedorin. Moscow, 2002 (Monuments of writing of the East. SHXX, 1).

(Ngo Thoi Shi. Notes on milestones in the history of Viet Nam). Saigon, 1960.

(Preliminary notes to the historical notes of Daiviet). Hanoi, 1997.

(Vietnamese rule eras). Hanoi, 1970.

(Approved by the supreme command, the universal mirror of Vietskian history, the basis and particulars). Vol. 1-2. Hanoi, 1998.

(Nguyen Trong Binh, Nguyen Linh, Bui Viet Ngi. Tables of correlation of days according to the lunar and solar calendar for two thousand years and historical mottos of the government). Hanoi, 1976.

(Nguyen Khak Thuan. Generations of Vietnamese dynasties). Ho Chi Minh City, 1993.

(Kuin Ky, Do Duc Hung. Vietnamese dynasties). Hanoi, 2003.

Permanent link to this publication: