TL;DR: Ngô Sĩ Liên's Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư opens the Outer Annals (Ngoại kỷ) with the Hồng Bàng era, recording Kinh Dương Vương, personal name Lộc Tục, son of Emperor Đế Minh, appointed to rule the southern region and founder of the country Xích Quỷ, who then married the daughter of the Lord of Động Đình and fathered Lạc Long Quân. This is a passage of history written down by fifteenth-century court historians from legend and old books, not an annal based on contemporary documents. It should therefore be read as a textual layer with a deliberate political and cultural purpose, and cross-checked against the original Hán text and later histories such as Việt Nam sử lược and Đại Nam quốc sử diễn ca.
What does the Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư begin with?
The national history compiled by Ngô Sĩ Liên and the Lê dynasty court historians, completed in 1479, does not begin with a dynasty of firm dates but with the Ngoại kỷ section, covering periods considered prior to and outside the official records of Vietnamese kings. The first book of the Ngoại kỷ opens with The Hồng Bàng Lineage, and within it are three successive figures: Kinh Dương Vương, Lạc Long Quân, and Hùng Vương[1].
The quốc ngữ translation by Mạc Bảo Thần (Nhượng Tống), published by Tân Việt in 1945, preserves that order: after the preface and editorial notes comes the Ngoại kỷ, book one, the Hồng Bàng lineage, then Kinh Dương Vương, Lạc Long Quân, and Hùng Vương in turn; only then does it move to the Thục dynasty and An Dương Vương[1]. This is the structure readers encounter today in any popular edition of the Toàn thư.
One point about the textual layer must be stated at once, because it determines how the entire section should be read. The original Hán text of the Toàn thư, Ngoại kỷ volumes 1 through 5, survives and has been digitized in archives of classical texts[2]; according to the comment of the 1945 translator, the Hồng Bàng and Thục sections were added by Ngô Sĩ Liên himself, drawing on Chinese histories, unofficial histories and various records, and were not in the earlier histories[1]. In other words, when the Toàn thư records Kinh Dương Vương, we are reading a fifteenth-century text recounting an older tradition, not a document contemporaneous with the figure.
Who is Kinh Dương Vương according to the Toàn thư?
According to the Kinh Dương Vương section, his personal name was Lộc Tục, of the Thần Nông lineage. Đế Minh, great-grandson of Viêm Đế of the Thần Nông clan, fathered Đế Nghi. On a southern tour, Đế Minh met Vụ Tiên Nữ at the Ngũ Lĩnh hills and fathered Lộc Tục. The history records Lộc Tục as a man of saintly wisdom, intelligence, and insight. Although Đế Minh favored him and intended to pass the throne to him, Lộc Tục insisted on yielding to his elder brother, so the king established Đế Nghi to rule the North; Lộc Tục was then appointed Kinh Dương Vương, governing the South, with the state named Xích Quỷ (Red Demon). Kinh Dương Vương married Thần Long, daughter of the Động Đình lord, and she bore Lạc Long Quân[3].
Several details in this passage deserve attention. First, the name: the 1945 translation writes "húy là Lộc Tục," using the convention of recording a figure's taboo name as with kings. Second, the state of Xích Quỷ: this is the first state name in Vietnamese history, but the Toàn thư gives only the name, not its borders. Third, the marriage to the daughter of the Động Đình lord: this detail links the figure to a legendary space in the north, around Động Đình Lake.
How are the borders of Xích Quỷ recorded?
The Toàn thư does not record the borders of Xích Quỷ. The Kinh Dương Vương section gives only the marker "Nhâm Tuất, first year" and the name of the state[3]. The four borders appear only in the Hùng Vương section, and they are the borders of Văn Lang: to the east the Nam sea, to the west Ba Thục, to the north Động Đình Lake, to the south the state of Hồ Tôn, that is Champa[2][3]. It is Trần Trọng Kim who assigns these four borders to Xích Quỷ: Việt Nam sử lược writes that Xích Quỷ bordered Động Đình Lake (Hunan) to the north, Hồ Tôn (Champa) to the south, Ba Thục (Sichuan) to the west and the Nam Hải sea to the east, and that Kinh Dương Vương became king "around the year nhâm tuất (2879 BCE?)", the question mark being the author's own[4].
This is where clear layering is needed. The Toàn thư gives no Western-calendar year; it only states that the Hồng Bàng line ran 2,622 years from the year Nhâm Tuất to the year Quý Mão[3]. The date 2879 BCE is a figure later writers computed backwards from that total, and Trần Trọng Kim himself remarks that it would give each king a reign of nearly 150 years, so the Hồng Bàng stories are not certain to be true[4]. The question mark he placed after the number is an appropriate reminder.
Is the Toàn thư the only source recording Kinh Dương Vương?
No. This is an important point when researching, because many readers assume the Toàn thư is the first and only text. In fact, the Hồng Bàng narrative is also recorded in later histories and books with differing details.
Trần Trọng Kim in Việt Nam sử lược (1920) recounts the same thread: Đế Minh was great-grandson of Thần Nông, traveled south to Ngũ Lĩnh mountain where he met a fairy, married her, and fathered Lộc Tục; later Đế Minh passed the throne to his eldest son Đế Nghi as king of the North, and appointed Lộc Tục as king of the South, titled Kinh Dương Vương, with the state named Xích Quỷ. Trần Trọng Kim also records the four borders of Xích Quỷ and Kinh Dương Vương's marriage to the daughter of the Động Đình lord, Long Nữ, who bore Sùng Lãm, who succeeded as Lạc Long Quân[4].
Lê Ngô Cát and collaborators in Đại Nam quốc sử diễn ca (1870) tell the same content in lục bát verse, with notable lines: "Cháu đời Viêm đế thứ ba, nối dòng Hỏa đức gọi là Đế Minh," "Phong làm quân trưởng nước ta, tên là Lộc Tục, hiệu là Kinh Dương," "Động Đình sớm kết với nàng Thần Long," "Sinh con là hiệu Lạc Long trị vì"[5]. The diễn ca calls Lộc Tục "quân trưởng nước ta" (chieftain of our country), a different phrasing from the Toàn thư's "to rule the South" and Việt Nam sử lược's "king of the South," reflecting the perspective of a nineteenth-century compiler.
Comparing the three texts, the core details overlap: Thần Nông lineage, Đế Minh, the meeting with the fairy in the South, Lộc Tục appointed to rule the South, the title Kinh Dương Vương, the state name Xích Quỷ, marriage to the daughter of the Động Đình lord, and the birth of Lạc Long Quân. Differences lie in tone and in how the figure is positioned: the Toàn thư places him in a northern imperial frame, the sử lược keeps that frame but tells it more briefly, while the diễn ca draws the figure closer to "our country."
Why does the opening begin with a semi-legendary figure?
This is a question readers of history often ask, and the answer lies in the function of the Ngoại kỷ section, not in the verifiability of each detail.
The fact that the Toàn thư opens with the Hồng Bàng lineage, then the Thục dynasty, the Triệu dynasty, then Trưng Nữ Vương and the end of Chinese rule, shows that the Lê historians wanted to construct a continuous flow from the founding of the nation to their own time[1][2]. In a national history, the opening section establishes origins: who are the ancestors of the political community the history is writing about. Kinh Dương Vương does this by linking the Viêm Đế lineage in the North with the southern realm, and that is a conscious linking.
In his own commentaries Ngô Sĩ Liên believes in some places and doubts in others. On the hundred sons, he cites the swallow's egg that begot the ancestor of the Shang and writes that "these all record what truly happened"; on Sơn Tinh and Thủy Tinh, he writes "better no books than to believe all books" and says he only sets down the old tale to pass on the doubt[1]. The 1945 translator is more blunt: in his comment at the end of the Thục dynasty he writes that such myths "should only be regarded as... myth," and that Ngô's judgments of "credible" or "not credible" had by his own generation lost any serious basis[1]. In other words, even within Vietnamese historiographical tradition, the reliability of the opening section has long been questioned.
Is it only Vietnamese history that opens this way?
Not exactly. Using a semi-legendary figure as a starting point is common in ancient historiography in many countries, where royal genealogies are often traced to gods or ancient emperors. What matters is not whether it is "true," but who is chosen as the starting point, and what that choice says about the community that produced the text.
Do Hồng Bàng and Kinh Dương Vương leave traces in belief life today?
Yes, and this is another layer of the same topic. If the Ngoại kỷ is the textual layer, the worship of early kings is the practical layer.
Vietnam's 2012 nomination file to UNESCO, titled Worship of Hùng kings in Phú Thọ, was inscribed on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. The bibliography lists Hán and Nôm sources mobilized for the file, including Ngô Sĩ Liên's Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư, the Nguyễn dynasty Quốc sử quán's Khâm định Việt sử thông giám cương mục, Phan Huy Chú's Lịch triều hiến chương loại chí, Lê Quý Đôn's Kiến văn tiểu lục, and the Ngọc phả Hùng Vương copied in 1470 held at the Hùng Temple complex[6].
A notable detail is the Ngọc phả Hùng Vương, a 1470 copy. This is a different type of text from national history: a ngọc phả is a genealogy of a worshipped lineage, usually kept by families or localities, and its content serves worship more than annalistic recording. The UNESCO file citing both types of texts shows that the tradition of the Hùng kings generally, and of the founding era specifically, exists in two parallel streams: the official historiography stream and the genealogical-belief stream.
A peer-reviewed study by Niculae Liviu Gheran published in 2022 in Caietele Echinox on goddess images worshipped in northern Vietnam recalls the Lạc Long Quân and Âu Cơ narrative, in which Lạc Long Quân takes Âu Cơ to the summit of Tản Viên mountain, then the two part, one returning to the sea, one staying in the mountains, and the children who remain with Âu Cơ become ancestors of the Hùng kings and the Vietnamese people[7]. This reading emphasizes the role of the mother figure in belief, an approach different from purely historiographical ones.
What should be kept in mind when reading the opening of the Toàn thư?
Several things are worth keeping in mind when researching this section.
First, distinguish the textual layer. The sentence "The Toàn thư records Kinh Dương Vương as..." differs from "Kinh Dương Vương was..." The first is a claim about a text and is verifiable: open the Hán text or a translation and see. The second is a claim about the past, and the Hồng Bàng section of the Toàn thư is not sufficient evidence for it.
Second, pay attention to the translation. The 1945 Mạc Bảo Thần translation covers only the Ngoại kỷ and is interleaved with the translator's own notes and comments, so citations must separate the words of the Toàn thư from those of the translator[1]. The print also has slips: the borders of Văn Lang are printed as "to the West it adjoins Hồ Tôn," whereas the Hán text has the south[2]. For small details such as proper names, transliterations, or numbers, comparison is necessary.
Third, note where versions differ. For example, the name of Kinh Dương Vương's wife: the 1945 translation of the Toàn thư records "daughter of the Động Đình lord, named Thần Long"[3], while Việt Nam sử lược records "daughter of the Động Đình lord, Long Nữ"[4]. The diễn ca writes "Động Đình sớm kết với nàng Thần Long"[5]. These are minor variants but worth noting when citing.
| Text | Author, year | Name of Kinh Dương Vương's wife | Name of succeeding son |
|---|---|---|---|
| Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư (1945 translation) | Ngô Sĩ Liên and court historians, 1479; Mạc Bảo Thần trans., 1945 | Daughter of the Động Đình lord, named Thần Long | Sùng Lãm, titled Lạc Long Quân |
| Việt Nam sử lược | Trần Trọng Kim, 1920 | Daughter of the Động Đình lord, Long Nữ | Sùng Lãm, succeeded as Lạc Long Quân |
| Đại Nam quốc sử diễn ca | Lê Ngô Cát and collaborators, 1870 | Lady Thần Long | Son titled Lạc Long |
Fourth, do not conflate Kinh Dương Vương with Hùng Vương. In the Toàn thư's thread, Kinh Dương Vương is the first generation, Lạc Long Quân the second, and Hùng Vương is the son of Lạc Long Quân and founder of Văn Lang[1][3]. Worship at the Hùng Temple is tied to the Hùng kings, the third link in that chain, not to Kinh Dương Vương. Merging the two figures is a common error in quick research.
So what is the answer to the original question?
The opening of the Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư records the Hồng Bàng lineage, beginning with Kinh Dương Vương, personal name Lộc Tục, of the Thần Nông lineage, appointed to rule the South, founding the state of Xích Quỷ, marrying the daughter of the Động Đình lord who bore Lạc Long Quân; then comes Lạc Long Quân and Hùng Vương, and only then the Thục dynasty. That is the content of the text, and it is stable across translations. What requires caution is not what the Toàn thư records, but whether we regard what it records about the early era as history that occurred. The translator of the 1945 edition raised that question in the comments he wrote after the Hồng Bàng and Thục sections[1].
