the historian david marr agrees, noting that "the distinction quite rightly pointed out by professor truong buu lam was in all probability bred of immediate adverse conditions and not the product of a long tradition". modern vietnamese historians of the communist regime go to the extent of asserting that định's justification for continued resistance was based on an implicit rejection of the monarchy at large. these historians base their hypothesis on the assertion that the confucian virtue of monarchical loyalty was unconditional and absolute in 19th-century vietnam. in the words of the editors of the institute of historical study's journal, "nghiên cứu lịch sử" ("historical studies"), "loyalty to the king was the people's duty, and to satisfy the obligation of monarchical loyalty, the court's orders had to be followed". in the view of marxist authors, định resolved the conflict between monarchical loyalty and resisting foreign occupation by discarding the constraints of confucian ethics. they assert that định justified his struggle by placing loyalty to tự đức below his loyalty to vietnam and its people. the institute of historical study's nguyen cong binh stated, "relying on the people, trương định placed the country above the king, thus safeguarding his feelings of loyalty to the country". these arguments are consistent with marxist ideology and its criticism of the nguyễn dynasty as a "reactionary, feudal regime". communist party historiography has long criticised the nguyễn dynasty and its roots in the nguyễn lords for the division of the country in the centuries-long struggle with the trịnh lords of the north and then the subsequent use of french aid of pigneau de behaine to unseat the tây sơn dynasty. it further accords with hanoi's ideological line of portraying anti-colonial, anti-french fighters of the 19th century as the spiritual ancestors of the vietnamese communist party.