J. S. Werner at Cơ quan Phổ thông Giáo lý Đại đạo (20 Jan 1996) - Photo by Huệ Khải
I. INTRODUCTION
In her monograph titled Peasant politics and religious sectarianism: Peasant and priest in the Cao Dai in
According to the “Estimate
of Cao Dai following given by the French Governor of Cochinchina, in a report
to the Governor General of Indochina, Saigon ,
14 December 1934. Personal Files of Governor Pagès...” [2]
Werner writes, “Five hundred thousand to
a million peasants were converted by 1930, out of a total population of 4 to
4.5 million.” [3]
In fact, the number of five
hundred thousand or a million Caodaists as quoted above has produced
controversies. As a primary summing-up, Victor L. Oliver writes:
“Statistical data on the growth of Caodaism during these earliest years
is unreliable and confusing. Nguyen Van Tam states they won almost 30,000
converts in six months. By October 1926 the membership had increased to 50,000.[4] Duncanson, who is critical of the Caodai,
insinuates that Le Van Trung, as a labor contractor of some frame, was able to
muster the claimed 50,000 people present at the official inauguration. He
implies that these members must be considered to be questionable
‘followers’.[5] In 1928 Le Van Trung claimed over one
million followers. In the same year, the newspaper L’Opinion published a membership figure of 700,000.
This figure was rejected by Maurice Monribot in La Presse indochinoise who wrote that there were only about
200,000 Caodai members.[6]
“Nguyen Tran Huan
writes that by 1931 the Caodai had about 500,000 followers.[7] Other writers have contradicted this
estimation. For example, Ellen J. Hammer believes that the Caodai had over one
million followers by 1930;[8] Meillon in Les Messages spirites states that by 1930 the Caodaists consisted
of about one-eighth (500,000) of the entire South Vietnamese population;[9] G. Abadie writes that in 1932, Caodaism’s
followers in Cochinchina numbered ‘more than one million out of three and a
half million inhabitants.’ [10]
“The divergence of
opinion on the actual numerical strength of the Caodai from 1925-1932 seems to
indicate reluctance, on the part of some, to admit the success of Caodaism. On
the other hand, extravagant claims by others suggests a defensive posture in
the face of criticism. These inflated estimates were an attempt to
over-exaggerate the movement’s success and to improve the image of the religion
for the public.” [11]
Having accounted for the controversial number of early
Caodaists, Victor L. Oliver affirms, “The
author believes a conservative estimate of Caodai membership (adults and
children) in 1930 is 500,000. In any case, even in terms of the most modest
estimates, the rapid growth in the early years is significant.” [12]
Agreeing with Oliver on the number of five hundred thousand
to a million Caodaists in 1930, Werner affirms, “Caodaism was the first large mass movement to appear in
Cochinchina...” [13]
Why did Caodaism appear and develop quickly in Cochinchina in
the early 20th century rather than any other regions and other periods? One of
various factors helping explain the question is that Cochinchina contains a cultural precondition appropriate to the
foundation of Caodaism.
According to Thạch Phương, the striking cultural feature of
Cochinchina is its openness in communications, its keenness towards the new,
its spirit of democracy and equality, its righteousness, benevolence and
tolerance, and its unrestraint against the rigid framework of feudalism.[14]
This feature might have made the Cochinchinese soon accept Caodaism although
the new belief seemed to be different from other existing religions.
In addition, it is worth noting that specific natural
conditions of Cochinchina inevitably have its own effects and strong impression
on material, mental and spiritual lives of local residents. Trần Thị Thu Lương
and Võ Thành Phương observe, “When the
world’s major religions had no conditions to strongly exert their influence, Southern Vietnam [Cochinchina] during the 18th and 19th centuries became favourable for the emergence
of local religions…” [15]
Consequently, when surveying the birth and growth of Caodaism
in Cochinchina, one needs to explore Cochinchina and its people that created
and have fostered Caodaism, an indigenous religion whose ideal of global
salvation was declared even in its early beginnings.
*
Why does the title of this monograph includes Nam
Kỳ (Cochinchina) instead of Nam Bộ (Southern Vietnam )
or another name?
The term Nam Kỳ appeared for the first time in 1834 under the
reign of king Minh Mạng. Literally, Kỳ 圻 means “a region”, and Nam
Kỳ means “southern region”. The term Nam Bộ was not used by the press in place
of Nam Kỳ until May 1945, after the Japanese army had overthrown the French
colonial rule.[16]
Literally, Bộ 部 means “part”, and Nam Bộ means “southern part”.[17]
Caodaism was officially founded in 1926 long before the term
Nam Bộ appeared. Thus it is reasonable enough to use the term Nam Kỳ in the
monograph.[18] This
designation can be herein considered as a cultural one that refers to the
period from the 1920s (when Caodaism came into being) backwards to the 17th
century (when the first Vietnamese migrants under the Nguyễn dynasty settled in
the southern region). The chosen term is not restricted to the period from the
year 1834 onwards, when the name Nam Kỳ Lục Tỉnh (six Cochinchinese provinces)
was officially recorded in historical works.
*
As mentioned above, the term Nam Kỳ is used in
its cultural aspect without any political and historical significance. The
title of the essay comprises “a cultural
precondition”. What is meant by the term culture in this context?
I would like to use it with
the meaning which was adopted by the international community at the
intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies held in Venice in 1970 and was reported by Federico Mayor, Director-General of Unesco, as follows: “...
culture englobes
everything — from the most sophisticated products to beliefs, customs, ways of
living and working — which differentiates one people from another.” [19]
With this meaning, cultural
preconditions refer to all culturally necessary conditions prior to the
birth of Caodaism so that this new religion, just when apprearing in
Cochinchina, could not only accommodate to the local inhabitants’ lifestyles,
customs, habits, and beliefs, but also have special features different from
those of other beliefs already existing in the region.
*
On seeing that cultural preconditions are
typicality of the South, we, as Sơn Nam
Preliminarily surveying Cochinchina as a cultural
precondition for the foundation of Caodaism, the monograph examines five
aspects as follows:
i. The openness of Cochinchinese physical geography;
ii. The openness and dynamism of Cochinchinese villages;
iii. Multiracial and
multi-religious features of Cochinchina;
iv. Cochinchinese characteristics; and
v. Spiritual needs of Cochinchinese inhabitants.
In presenting these five aspects, I am trying to sieve and
make the best use of publications of both Vietnamese and foreign authors who
are non-Caodaists, hoping that their professional view-points could helpfully
offer an objective understanding of the birth of Caodaism in the early 20th
century Cochinchina.
In other words, by following Confucius’s principle of “transmitting and not making”, I am
wishful that the arguments presented in this monograph would be free from
subjective judgement and bias so that they might help form an insight into the
cultural precondition for the foundation of Caodaism, a young religion which
has really existed in the spirituality of the Vietnamese people for over
three-fourths of a century.
HUỆ KHẢI
[1]
[Werner 1981: 4]. N.B. – This footnote indicates that the above quotation is
from a Werner’s book published in 1981, page 4. For the related source in
details, see “Bibliography” at the end of this monography (p. 95).
[2] [Werner 1981: 72].
[3] [Werner 1981: 4].
[4] [Nguyễn Văn Tâm 1949: 4-5].
[5] [Duncanson 1968: 125-126].
[6] [Smith 1970: 341].
[7] [Nguyễn Trần Huân 1958: 273].
[8]
[Hammer 1954: 79].
[9]
[Meillon 1962: 14].
[10]
[Gobron 1950: 103].
[11]
[Oliver 1976: 41-42].
[13]
[Werner 1981: 15].
[14] [Thạch
Phương 1992: 249, 253, 254, 258].
[15] [Trần
Thị Thu Lương 1991: 42].
[16] [Bằng
Giang 1992: 11, 14].
[17] [Bằng
Giang 1992: 11, 14].
[18] The
name Nam Kỳ herein does not refer to the short period from 1 June 1946 to 19
May 1948, when a puppet administration was formed by the French colonialism.
When quoting other writers, in the English text, I thoughtfully insert
[Cochinchina] right after “Southern Vietnam ”
which means “Nam Bộ” in their original texts.
[19]
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1310/is_1989_Nov/ai_8171031/pg_2.
[20] [Sơn Nam
[21] [Đinh
Văn Hạnh 1999: 30].
