Friday, 5 February 2016

2. A CONCISE CAODAI HISTORY: THE 1926 INAUGURATION


At 8 p.m. on Wednesday night of 29 September 1926, there was a large meeting so as to prepare the registration for the Caodai legal entity at the residence of apostle Nguyễn Văn Tường,[1] also called Võ Văn Tường, at 237 bis on an alley off Galliéni boulevard, district 1, Saigon (today 208 Cô Bắc street, district 1).
Co-chaired by Daoist Cardinal Thượng Trung Nhựt (Lê Văn Trung), Confucian Cardinal Ngọc Lịch Nguyệt (Lê Văn Lịch), and Thượng Phẩm Cao Quỳnh Cư, the historic meeting was attended by hundreds of the earliest Caodai apostles and followers.
As a result, a list of two hundred and forty-five Caodaists’ signatures was enclosed with the registration file whereas the declaration text in French dated 07 October 1926 bore the names of twenty-eight Caodai apostles. Then Cardinal Thượng Trung Nhựt himself took all the dossier to Cochinchina Governor’s Palace (today the Municipal Museum at 65 Lý Tự Trọng street, district 1) to submit to Acting Governor Le Fol on Thursday 07 October 1926.[2]
The said text in French dated 07 October 1926 is truly the official Declaration of the Foundation of Caodaism. Indeed, it can be judged as follows:
“The Declaration of the Foundation of Caodaism is a historic turning-point. It closed the earliest beginnings of Caodai faith and simultaneoulsy started a large spread of this new faith throughout Cochinchina’s provinces before the Caodai Inauguration was formally celebrated in Long Thành village, Tây Ninh province, in mid-November 1926. In other words, the Caodai Declaration in October 1926 is a milestone in the Caodai history, marking a new period when this endogenous faith was officially introduced to the public as an institutional religion.” [3]
Between the 1926 Inauguration and the earliest beginnings (from 1920 till the end of September 1926) was a transition step, which was named Phổ Độ Lục Tỉnh (the Cochinchina-wide diffusion) and was carried out for a month.
I. THE COCHINCHINA-WIDE DIFFUSION
In 1832, under the reign of king Minh Mạng, southern Vietnam was divided into six provinces (An Giang, Biên Hòa, Định Tường, Hà Tiên, Phiên An, and Vĩnh Long). Thus, the name “Lục Tỉnh” (six provinces) did exist in 1832. Two years later, “Lục Tỉnh” was called Nam Kỳ” 南圻, which literally means southern territory. In 1835, Phiên An province was named Gia Định province.
After the six provinces of Nam Kỳ had become a French colony (1867), they were divided into twenty-one provinces (1899) as follows:
- The former An Giang was split into five provinces: Cần Thơ, Châu Đốc, Long Xuyên, Sa Đéc, and Sóc Trăng.
- The former Biên Hòa was split into four provinces: Bà Rịa, Biên Hòa, Cap Saint-Jacques (say Vũng Tàu), and Thủ Dầu Một.
- The former Định Tường became Mỹ Tho.
- The former Gia Định was split into five provinces: Chợ Lớn, Gia Định, Gò Công, Tân An, and Tây Ninh.
- The former Hà Tiên was split into three provinces: Bạc Liêu, Hà Tiên, and Rạch Giá.
- The former Vĩnh Long was split into three provinces: Bến Tre, Trà Vinh, and Vĩnh Long.
Under the French colonial rule, Nam Kỳ was called Cochinchine; Trung Kỳ, Annam; and Bắc Kỳ, Tonkin.
Dividing Nam Kỳ into twenty-one provinces, maybe the French colonialists wished to wipe out the name “Lục Tỉnh” from the heart and soul of the residents, so as to break off their attachment to the tradition - a psychological manoeuvre coupled with oppressions against patriotic resistance movements. Nonetheless, the name “Lục Tỉnh” (also called “Lục Châu”) was still kept well in the Nam Kỳ residents’ mind. Thus, in the 1926 autumn, when launching their religious diffusion throughout southern Vietnam, the earliest Caodai apostles officially named their efforts “Phổ Độ Lục Tỉnh”, which literally means the universal salvation in the six [former Cochinchinese] provinces.[4]
HUỆ KHẢI




[1] As for the years of birth and death of Caodai apostles, see Appendix” (p. 98).
[2] [Huệ Khải 2010: 32-34].
This footnote indicates that the above information is from a book by Huệ Khải, published in 2010, pages 32-34. For the related source in details, see “Reference Books” (p. 101).
[3] [Lê Anh Dũng 1996: 182].
[4] [Huệ Khải 2010: 7-10].