“L’Art Indo-Chinois”, written by (Matgioï) Albert Puyou, comte de Pouvourville (1861 – 1939, first published in 1894,) has for a long time been the must read, must study book for those who specialised in the art of Indo-China. Why and when it disappeared out of sight is unknown, but in 1996 Nabu Public Domain Reprints, aware of the expiration date of the copyright decided to republish this book in a photocopied form.
Albert Puyou, comte de Pouvourville, a Nancy-born Swiss who took the penname of Matgioï when writing on Taoïsm, was a Swiss national who initially at least served in the French foreign legion in Indo-China, and later as an inspector or inspector-general in France’s standing army (See “l’Affaire de Siam”). De Pouvourville was born Swiss in Nancy that in his early childhood used to be a Swiss city. Once an army-officier he must have applied for, or had been given the French nationality.
De Pouvourville spent most of his adult life in what is now called Vietnam, upper Laos and a part of Cambodia. The qualification of “adventurer” that we encounter in several internet-entries is unwarranted.
Matgioï, “on the other side of the fence”, is the title of one of De Pouvourville’s books. Matgioï therefore is not to be translated with “other side of the fence”, but, unless a knowing Vietnamese comes up with a better translation, with “œil du jour”, i.e. day-to-day observations.
Being an inspector De Pouvourville visited the French military settlements, their legacies, and Asian counterparts of the then French empire. He seems to have had ample opportunity to specialise in the art of the region, especially the art of building and construction. As such he had the opportunity to visit the new palace of the Siamese King Rama-V in Bangkok(1), that of the Cambodian king in Phnom Penh, and he travelled as far as Yünnan and Nanjing in China to report on the revolution that was brewing over there.
He furthermore describes the politico-military situation in the region and writes how Vientiane, the capital of Laos in the year 1827, well before the formal occupation by the French in 1893, despite it being reduced to ruins remained a centre of Buddhist studies with several monk-schools.
Later on he writes how “Mr. Résident supérieur Brière” in 1895 “re-establishes the religious and political capital of the Mekong-basin on the ruins of Vientiane.” (“L’Affaire …”) In neither of his works however De Pouvourville shows the slightest knowledge of Buddhism, nor an inclination to studying the subject.
As De Pouvourville must have been the first, or maybe one of the first Europeans to become a Taoïst, he is mostly remembered in that capacity. His skilfull observations into the art of South-East Asia seem to have slipped out of the memory of archaeologists and art connoisseurs.
A few researchers into politics and religion mention De Pouvourville.(2) Since Mark Sedgwick’s publication De Pouvourville is dubbed a cultural pessimist. However, when we read his lines, both on art in “L’Art Indo-Chinois” and on Franco-Asian politics in “La Révolution …” and in “L’ Affaire …”, we cannot but conclude that here was merely a conservative man who preferred the quality of old-fashioned plain wood over modern veneer, and whose qualities as a diplomat were what could be expected from a colonist in the 19th Century. However, his views on the Asians whom he met in Indo-China and China proper did not entirely reflect the European prejudices. De Pouvourville abhorred the Siamese who in his days made an effort to establish or re-establish their kingdom by taking Laos, part of Cambodia, Vietnam and Yünnan, and thereby greatly annoyed the French “Protectorat” in Indo-China, but his name-calling was politically motivated, not racially. He abhorred the English, the other colonial power on the other side of Siam. He abhorred the northern branch of the Chinese White Lotus Society and the Boxers and came up with the “yellow race”, a qualification that the entire continent of Europe would adopt, but he had the utmost respect for those Yünnanese who came to the aid of French military settlements when times were tough. He called the hill-tribes in todays northern Vietnam “ces sauvages” (the wild, uncultivated ones) but when he pleaded that France would maintain its strongholds in Indo-China it was out of love for the population.(L’ Affaire …)
Despite the fact that nearly all high-quality furniture that the French 19th century produced was made of Indo-Chinese hardwood, and despite the fact that the Indo-Chinese hills produced tea — which the French did not drink until late 20th century — one has the impression that The Protectorate in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam subsisted on the income of taxes, whatever taxes they were: taxes that allowed the Indo-Chinese to continue living on their lands, taxes on every pork slaughtered, etc. It’s not before a commercial treaty with Siam, in 1893, that we read of the expected exportation from the Siamese port of Paknam of hides, cotton, dried vegetables, silk and wax. (L’ Affaire …)
One of the things we may laud in De Pouvourville is that he in his “L’Art Indo-Chinois” dared to call the Angkor Thom complex in Cambodia “les palais des rois” (palaces of kings), and rightly so. This epithet of “palais des rois” came to be neglected somewhere during the 20th century when archaeological expeditions, and Cambodian officials who furthered the printing of books on the subject, choose the term “temple complex”. We may assume that this shift in outlook took place under the influence of an “our temples” uttered by senior Buddhist monks. However, it’s my guess; there’s no proof. Neither is there any proof of the contrary. All written sources in the days of the ancient Khmer kings must have been kept by their Hindu or Brahmanical purohita, house-priests. Either these purohita fled with the entire corpus of manuscripts, or they hid the lot, never to be found again, or their collection of texts came to be destroyed when disgruntled Siamese and Birmese troops in the first years of the 15th century finally and forever destroyed most of the palatial buildings and their contents. There is proof of repeated attacks and counter-attacks. The modern assumption that the Angkor civilisation was abandoned under the pressure of an untenable system of barais (huge ponds) and canals may be correct, but the buildings of Angkor could have survived this abandonment if not for the prior wanton destruction by neighbouring armies. Calamity upon calamity.
The following two pages deal with the philosophical aspects of Indo-Chinese art and the nine-headed naga, seen by De Pouvourville at Angkor Thom(4), and still in place. He just mentions it in passing. But as it is one of those instances where we might get a glimpse of the Khmer life not just influenced by the Indian religious tradition but by the Chinese as well, it might be of interest.
(1): Before March 27, 1889 when diplomatic contact between Siam and “the Protectorate”, i.e. the French occupation of Vietnam ceased — “L’ Affaire de Siam”, p.18 reprint
(2): Mark Sedgwick [ Abd al-Azim] “Against the Modern World : Traditionalism and the Secret Societies of China”. When Mark thinks he cites De Pouvourville’s “le péril jaune” (the yellow peril) correctly, he misreads the author’s last page of “L’ Affaire …”. “Le péril jaune” in that case, seen in the light of the 19th Century Sino-Japanese war, is a warring Japan, not China.
(3): See “La Révolution et les société secrètes en Chine”; La Revue de Paris, 3 avril 1912
(4): l’Art Indo-Chinois, p. 92.
In July 1893 the Siamese king demands restitution of the provinces Siem Reap (Angkor) and Battambang, then under the sway of the French. Since the 15th Cent. these provinces were under the rule of the kingdom of Ayutthaya (Siam). From those days onward there was a back and forth between Siamese and Cambodian kingdoms until the days of the French Protectorate. It would take until 1907 before Angkor again became part of Siam. After the independence of Cambodia in 1953 Angkor (Siem Reap) and the other province were declared territory belonging to the newly formed state of Cambodia.
As the British occupied Burma and the French the states east of the Mekong, and as both colonisers sought to establish a bufferzone between their respective territories, the outcome of diplomatic and military efforts was in the end that in 1896 Siam (Thailand) more or less within its present borders became this “État tampon”, the bufferstate between the two. (L’ Affaire …)
The result of this state of affairs has been that Siam/Thailand has never been colonised by either of the two, or by any other state for that matter.