TL;DR: Phan Kế Bính (1915), Édouard Diguet (1906), and Nguyễn Văn Huyên (1944) all recorded that fortune telling, day selection, and spirit mediumship were widespread practices in early 20th century northern Vietnam. The three viewed these practices through three different lenses: reformist Confucian scholar, colonial officer, and ethnographer. The sources show the practices and how contemporary intellectuals regarded them; they prove nothing about whether divination works.
Who were the three recorders, and what lens did each use?
A century ago, fortune telling, day selection, and spirit mediumship were not the preserve of one class of people. All three early 20th century recorders found them present in marriage, funerals, house building, trade, healing, and lawsuits. But the way each looked at them differed sharply.
- Phan Kế Bính wrote as a reformist Confucian scholar, recording customs while also commenting on them and trying to separate what should be kept from what should be discarded.
- Édouard Diguet, a French colonial officer, observed the Vietnamese from outside, recording many details but reading them through the lens of a ruler.
- Nguyễn Văn Huyên was the first Vietnamese ethnographer to graduate from the Sorbonne; he observed with scientific method and wrote from the position of an insider.
These three lenses yield three kinds of sources, and today's reader needs to know which kind they are reading.
What did Phan Kế Bính (1915) say about fortune telling and day selection?
Phan Kế Bính published a series of articles on customs in Đông Dương tap chi in 1913 and 1914, printed as the book Viet Nam phong tuc in 1915[1]. The table of contents includes a whole run of entries on this subject: divination, physiognomy, sorcery, mediumship, spirit possession, wandering souls, methods of prognostication, methods of observation, choosing days and hours, taboos, ritual techniques, and temperament[1]. The list alone shows he treated this as a large part of life, not an isolated matter.
He recorded that people chose days for weddings, ground-breaking, travel, and starting a business; read faces to judge character; and called spirits and entered trances to ask about affairs, to heal, and to find missing persons.
But Phan Kế Bính did not merely record. He commented. His tone is that of a Confucian scholar influenced by modern learning, who saw many customs as old habits in need of correction rather than truths. He distinguished between wholesome customs worth keeping and superstitions to be gradually abandoned. This was the reformist attitude of the early century, neither outright rejection nor defense.
A point worth noting for today's reader: Phan Kế Bính wrote for Vietnamese readers, assuming they already knew these customs, so he explained little in detail and focused on description and commentary. To reconstruct the details of practice, one must read outsiders as well.
How did Diguet (1906) see Vietnamese divination?
Édouard Diguet, a French colonial officer, published Les Annamites: societe, coutumes, religions in Paris in 1906[2]. In his preface he states plainly that this is not a full scientific study but the result of daily observations recorded over fourteen years in the Far East, drawing also on the works of predecessors such as Luro and Dumoutier[2].
He also states his purpose: if the work draws a few of his compatriots to take an interest in the people whose destiny France had taken responsibility for guiding, the author would consider that enough[2]. That sentence places the book exactly where it belongs: descriptive material serving the colonial enterprise.
Diguet recorded the life, customs, beliefs, and religion of the Vietnamese of northern Vietnam, and the chapters on pagodas, rituals, and devotional practice are praised in the prefatory correspondence[2]. On fortune telling and sorcery, the book offers descriptions valuable as an outsider's record, at a specific time, in a specific place.
But the reader should know: Diguet wrote within a colonial frame of mind, using words for the Vietnamese that read heavily today. Quoting him requires accompanying context so the reader knows who is speaking, to whom, and where. The value of the record lies in observed detail, not in judgment.
What ritual objects and offerings did Dumoutier (1891) list?
In 1891, in Paris, Gustave Dumoutier published Les symboles, les emblemes et les accessoires du culte chez les Annamites[3]; he was a contemporary and was cited by Diguet. This is not a book about fortune telling but a descriptive catalogue of Vietnamese symbols, altar objects, and ritual implements, with drawings by Vietnamese hands[3].
In the preface, Dumoutier writes that the ethnography of religion must be the first chapter of the history of every Asian nation, because no one can understand a people without understanding their religious spirit and traditions[3]. This is a serious framing, but still a text by a Frenchman for late 19th century French readers.
For today's reader, Dumoutier is useful elsewhere: he helps reconstruct the material setting of ritual, things like the characters for Phuc and Tho carved on objects, dragon images on mandarins' coffins, and the implements accompanying altars[3]. Without that setting, descriptions of divination and mediumship float free.
How did Nguyễn Văn Huyên (1944) study popular belief?
Nguyễn Văn Huyên published La civilisation annamite in Hanoi in 1944, with a Vietnamese translation, Van minh Viet Nam, following later[4]. The Sorbonne trained him as the first Vietnamese ethnographer, and his work surveys the ethnography of Vietnamese civilization[4].
In the chapters on beliefs, worship, and festivals, he devotes a section to sorcery and fortune telling[4]. The difference from the previous two: he writes from inside the culture, with an ethnographer's method, neither as a reformer wanting to correct customs nor as a ruler wanting to understand a people in order to govern them.
That position has strengths and weaknesses. Strong because he understood context, knowing what was a local variation and what was widespread. Weak because an insider can also overlook what an outsider sees at once.
What did Đào Duy Anh (1938) write about divination?
In 1938 in Hue, Đào Duy Anh published Viet Nam van hoa su cuong; the book outlines Vietnamese culture in three aspects: economy, society, and intellect[5]. It includes a section discussing religion, beliefs, divination, and the superstitious customs of the early 20th century[5].
This is one of the earliest cultural surveys written in Vietnamese, placing fortune telling and divination within the broader picture of intellectual life rather than isolating them as superstition. That framing influenced later writing on folk beliefs in Vietnam.
Comparison table: who recorded, when, what, and with what attitude
| Recorder | Year | Work | What was recorded | Recorder's attitude |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phan Kế Bính | 1915 | Viet Nam phong tuc | Divination, physiognomy, sorcery, mediumship, spirit possession, wandering souls, prognostication, choosing days and hours, taboos | Reformist Confucian: records then comments, distinguishing customs to keep from habits to drop |
| Édouard Diguet | 1906 | Les Annamites: societe, coutumes, religions | Life, customs, beliefs, religion of northern Vietnamese | Colonial officer: observes from outside, ruler's frame of mind |
| Gustave Dumoutier | 1891 | Les symboles, les emblemes et les accessoires du culte chez les Annamites | Symbols, altar objects, ritual implements | French researcher: descriptive catalogue, with Vietnamese drawings |
| Nguyễn Văn Huyên | 1944 | La civilisation annamite | Beliefs, worship, festivals, sorcery, fortune telling | Insider ethnographer, scientific method |
| Đào Duy Anh | 1938 | Viet Nam van hoa su cuong | Religion, beliefs, divination, superstitious customs | Cultural scholar: places them in a three-part overview of economy, society, intellect |
Why were fortune telling and day selection everywhere?
The question is not whether divination is correct, but why it was so deeply embedded in life. The records of the three writers suggest a few readable reasons.
First, an agricultural society needed a calendar. Planting, marriage, house building, and trade were tied to weather and seasons. A system of choosing days and hours gave people a way to organize time even without a widely available printed calendar. Day selection, from this angle, was a form of scheduling in the language of the sexagenary cycle.
Second, when formal sanctions were not strong enough for every matter, the community needed ways to adjudicate. Day selection, physiognomy, and consulting a medium could act as a third party offering an opinion, helping reduce dispute.
Third, illness and loss in that era often had no answer. When medicine was insufficient, when the cause of death was unclear, finding some way to understand, even unverifiable, was a way for people to keep living.
These three reasons are not mutually exclusive, and they do not make divination correct. They only explain why it was widespread.
How can colonial sources be read without borrowing a colonial voice?
This is where writing on this subject most easily goes wrong. Diguet and Dumoutier are valuable sources, but both wrote within the frame of mind of the French in Indochina in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Diguet himself calls his book daily observation, not full scientific study[2]. Dumoutier wrote for French readers, even while framing his subject seriously[3].
The right use: take the descriptive detail, drop the value judgments. Do not borrow the source's derogatory words. Do not turn a colonial officer's observation into truth about the Vietnamese.
Where is the evidence still missing?
The records of all three writers focus on northern Vietnam. Phan Kế Bính wrote in Hanoi, Diguet served in the north, Nguyễn Văn Huyên worked in Hanoi. Southern and central Vietnam are nearly absent from detailed descriptions of fortune telling, day selection, and mediumship.
This does not mean southerners did not do these things. It only means the available sources do not allow any firm statement about the south. Anyone wanting to reconstruct the full picture must find other sources, and until then, any generalization for the whole country is inference.
It should also be said plainly: these sources contain no quantitative data. No one counted what percentage of Vietnamese consulted fortune tellers, or how many households had a medium's altar. Any figure about proportions is guesswork, and this article offers none.
What real effects arise from belief?
One thing should be stated correctly: when a person believes they have chosen a good day, they may be calmer, more confident, and therefore act differently. Belief changes behavior, behavior changes outcomes. This is a real effect, and it does not prove that a divination system predicts correctly. Nor is it something to deny.
Distinguishing these two things is the condition for reading sources on fortune telling without falling into two extremes: treating every prediction as efficacious, or treating every believer as inferior. Neither is a way to read sources.
What does rereading the three recorders mean today?
Phan Kế Bính, Diguet, and Nguyễn Văn Huyên offer three kinds of sources that complement each other. Phan Kế Bính gives the view of an insider who wanted reform. Diguet gives the view of an outsider with power. Nguyễn Văn Huyên gives the view of an insider with method. Đào Duy Anh places it all in a broader cultural picture[5].
Read together, we can partly reconstruct the early 20th century picture: fortune telling, day selection, and mediumship were widespread practices, present in the major events of a person's life, and contemporary intellectuals viewed them through many different eyes, from reformist to colonial to scientific.
What the sources do not tell us is whether divination is correct. That is another question, and it lies outside the scope of these books. For broader context on these customs, see the article What are Vietnamese customs and practices?.
