Siamese modernity through three country palaces in Phetchaburi.

Abstract

This article investigates an interpretation of three respective Siamese leaders’ visions of modernity through the medium of three static palaces in Phetchaburi: Phra Nakhon Kiri (the Hilltop Palace) of King Mongkut, Phra Ram Ratchanivej (the Gunner Palace) of King Chulalongkorn, and Mrigadayavan (the Seaside Palace) of King Vajiravudh. The architectural forms of these three palaces have a great value in setting out what is known about the three kings’ intentions, values, and personalities influenced by ‘the West’ during the transition of Siamese modernisation until the end of royal absolutism in 1932. To complicate any research methodology, the evidence of the three kings’ political visions is relatively abstract and difficult to interpret properly. In a sense as a detective, the study attempts to seek clues based on past socio-political phenomena and to sort out to what extent political visions are embedded in the architectural forms of the country palaces, and why? At the hilltop palace, King Mongkut used hierarchically traditional architecture as a means of bolstering national pride and legitimising claims to the right of kingship. Simultaneously, a political position of Siam as a modern state was manifested through the European-Sino- Siamese hybrid architectural style in the mid-nineteenth century. Also, the bell-shaped pagoda within the site complex reflects his religious reforms for the sake of upgrading monastic practices and purifying the canon. His reformed Buddhist sect, Thammayut, is characterised as a rational, intellectual, and humanistic approach. Such religious reform was integrated with scientific knowledge, which he had learned in his contact with the Christian missionaries while in his monkhood and later as king. King Chulalongkorn created a modern nation-state in response to the aggressive expansion of European imperialism, especially in the 1890’s. Being influenced by Kaiser Wilhelm II’s palace in Germany, the king manifested his ‘global views’ of civilisation and modernisation through the Jugendstil or Art Nouveau architectural style at the Gunner Palace. Also, the site reflects the Siamese-German diplomatic relationship while countering the colonial powers, especially France and Britain. The seaside palace discourses the conceptual synthesis of Siamese and Western cultural experience whereby parallel to his nationalistic policy. King Vajiravudh enthusiastically attempted to revive the spirit of traditional architecture coupled with Western amenities and modern technology. This royal veranda bungalow also reflects the king’s personality, lifestyle, and taste influenced by English culture through his formative education in Britain. The empirical study yields three major insights. 1. There is a first methodological problem as it is impossible to directly ask questions of the three kings but one must rather find and document the material evidence of past socio-political situations and then deduce their visions. However, the study of political vision is relatively abstract and difficult to be interpreted validly and reliably because of incomplete and imprecise information, a strong reliance on inference, and difficulty in scientific method. Therefore, how to impute intentions, values, and personality from architectural buildings that now have no 'life'? How to validate the research result? 2. The study encompasses a wide range of specialties and subdisciplines that attempt to foster an understanding of the transit of Siamese modernity. To understand the complex interplay between the three kings and three palaces, it is important to have holistic knowledge of other disciplines, especially socio-political history and architectural history in Thailand. So how to write three, essentially disconnected stories of three reigns as a continuum? How to bridge the gaps between political policies, personalities, and architectural expressions? 3. Underlying there is an epistemological problem: the way of seeing the world changed radically over these 74 years (1851-1925). There were absolute shifts in the way that Thai knowledge and modernity were being constructed variously in accordance with and in reaction to Western influences.