Review of Celestial Masters: History and Ritual in Early Daoist Communities
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Review of Celestial Masters: History and Ritual in Early Daoist Communities CELESTIAL MASTERS: HISTORY AND RITUAL IN EARLY The introduction (1–17), with a short section on “Reli- DAOIST COMMUNITIES gion in the Eastern Han” (10–15), elicits a feeling of deja vu and will be of some use to uninformed readers only. By Terry F. Kleeman Two parts with four chapters each unfold, “History” (Part Harvard-Yenching Institute Monograph Series, 102 I) and “Ritual and Community” (Part II). Part I tackles Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2016 “The Founding of the Celestial Master Church,” examining Pp. xiii 1 425. Maps, illustrations. $49.95. “External Evidence” (chapter 1, 21–62) then “Internal Documents” (chapter 2, 63–110), before moving on to its REVIEWER: Gregoire Espesset – Centre de recherche sur les civilisations de situation in the third century (the long chapter 3, 111 89) l’Asie orientale and up to the sixth century, with surveys of the reformer 寇謙之 Paris, France, 75005 Kou Qianzhi (no dates given) in Northern China and the rebel Sun En 孫恩 (d. 402) in the South (the short Kleeman’s latest book is a noteworthy attempt at construct- chapter 4, 190–218, an abridgement of earlier scholar- ing a consistent picture of the Way of the Celestial Master ship). In Part II, the short chapter 5 (“Ritual Life,” 221–39) (tianshi dao 天師道) as a major East Asian religion that, describes the “oratory,” the “parish,” and the Daoist dress just as some medieval Chinese hagiographers imagined it, code. Chapter 6 (“The Daoist Citizen,” 240–72) covers would have existed as early as the mid-second century CE, daily observances, assemblies, and communal banquets and of its main features up to the sixth century. Its bulk known as “kitchens” (chu 廚). The long chapter 7 (“The consists of translations, with paraphrase and discussions, Novice,” 273–324) examines issues related to the early of generous excerpts from mainly religious texts (nearly all religious career, “gender, class, and ethnicity,” with a found in the mid-fifteenth century authoritative bibliotheca focus on somewhat repetitive formulaic documents and known to Westerners as the “Daoist Canon”) and a handful an appended translation of a “list of thirty-six rules for of historiographical sources. Combining authorial conjec- serving the master” (320–24). Chapter 8 (“The Liba- ture with conflicting historical accounts, fragments of nor- tioner,” 325–87), with more formulaic documents, mative exposes sometimes difficult to contextualize, and expounds the duties of “the primary religious profession- hagiographical stories, it succeeds in bringing between two al within the Celestial Master church” (325), including covers versatile data hitherto dispersed and not always such procedures as divine petitioning, the drawing of available in English. But the classic Sinological approach “talismans,”“pledge offerings,” and “rituals for the harking back to the heyday of Daoist studies in the 1970s– dead.” The actual contents only loosely espouse this 1980s (on page 3, Kleeman’s narrow understanding of the structure: a mere few pages are of historical relevance in word “Daoism” relies on a paper published forty years chapters 2–3, the bulk of which rather comes under Part ago), some knowledge of the Chinese language as sole II. Many translations and discussions are scattered across method, and the fact that no new document or anything chapters, resulting in cases of inconsistency, self- like a fresh theoretical paradigm is put forth, position the contradiction, and redundancy.1 A meager “epilogue” book as a conservative synthesis. Its first half, as argued with minimalist notes swiftly bridges the gap between below, will not convince exigent historians and attentive the chronological focus of the book and the next millenni- readers; but its second half, more descriptive and nearly um and a half (five pages, 388–93). Bibliographical refer- free from historical ambition, will prove helpful as a ences (395–415) and an index by the author (417–25),2 sourcebook on daily life in some Daoist communities of both selective, close the volume. The page layout is read- medieval China. The volume should find a place on class- able, with footnotes and abundant Chinese text, but copy- room shelves, but it will not supersede many of the earlier editing and proofreading could have been more careful.3 important publications on the subject—to which Kleeman Methodology, summarily evoked (9, n. 16), is the twice admits a heavy debt (“Acknowledgements,” xi–xiii; book’s most serious limitation, especially in Part I. Distin- 1, n. 2)—while a range of defects discourage its use as reli- guishing between “external” and “internal” sources was able reference tool. probably inspired by the categories of “texts in general Religious Studies Review, Vol. 42 No. 4, December 2016 VC 2016 Rice University. 259 Religious Studies Review · VOLUME 42 · NUMBER 4 · DECEMBER 2016 and internal circulation” used by Schipper and Verellen in founded—it may have been young when the stele was their Companion (2004). Not only has that artificial dichot- carved, contrary to Kleeman’s claim—or about the identi- omy been criticized (Boltz 2006; Kirkland 2007, 36–39), ty of the founder, nor does it nullify the possibility that but Kleeman does not really apply it and refers to Daoist Zhang Ling was an immortality seeker unrelated to the sources right from the first pages of the first chapter. In early group (see 66, n. 5, for an ungrounded criticism of theory, that chapter relies on “four historical sources”—- Robinet, who was not “speculating” but merely comment- though the different authors, texts, and commentaries ing upon the sources). Nor does it confirm the Zhang Ling- rather point to seven layers—compiled at various dates Zhang Heng 張衡-Zhang Lu 張魯 patriarchal filiation given between the mid-third and late seventh century, and a canonical status in later Daoist hagiography, whose historic- Zhang Ling 張陵 “biography” perhaps compiled by Ge ity Kleeman is determined to prove—this is the second lim- Hong 葛洪 in the early fourth century, known only from itation of the book. This filiation cannot accommodate later quotations. Unable to decide if that biography Zhang Xiu 張脩, even though the earliest (mid-third centu- should be treated as “external” or “internal,” Kleeman ry) two testimonies—fragments of Liu Ai’s 劉艾 Xiandi ji 獻 splits it up between his first two chapters. (This is only 帝紀 and Yu Huan’s 魚豢 Dianlue€ 典略 (translated at 28– one of the sources disorderedly dealt with: at 68–70, pas- 30)—both present him as leader of the group before Zhang sages from a Daoist text are examined in the sequence of Lu had him killed and appropriated his followers. Later folios 20b, 14a–b, and 14a.) Repeatedly dismissing Ge accounts diverge, generating a confusion over which many Hong as “late as well as physically remote from Sichuan” scholars have tumbled since Pei Songzhi 裴松之 in the ear- (22), hence “not credible” (64), Kleeman rejects most of ly fifth century. To dodge the difficulty, Kleeman gives pref- that biography as either a textual manipulation or bla- erence to later accounts over the earliest ones, discarded as tant invention; but, when a fragment of it happens to fit being the product of people not “native of Sichuan,”“based his agenda, he accepts it as “an authentic piece of on official reports” or “on the account of a hostile outsider” church lore” (67). In Part II, because the same Ge Hong (35–36). It seems na€ıve to assume that proximity must noted the Daoist banquets, Kleeman suddenly praises guarantee the reliability and objectivity of witnesses who, him as a “great occultist” and “interested outsider” given the complex tangle of rivalry, alliance shifting, betray- (258). This unsystematic and tendentious approach, char- al, and mutual killing among local clans painted in chapter acterized by temperamental volte-faceandvaluejudg- 1, may well have had family or confessional interests to ments, not only confuses the reader, it results in self- defend (Kleeman himself ingenuously notes that Chang Qu contradiction and mistakes. For example, one of Klee- 常璩 “had served under the Daoist rulers of the Han-Cheng man’s historical sources (chapter 1) does mention Zhang state,” 31). Official historiography is no less trustworthy Ling, but contrary to what he claims at the beginning of than local testimonies, once its pro-social order bias is chapter 2, it gives no date: the sentence—note the past accepted (Espesset 2014) and each historiographer’salle- tense—“We learned that [Zhang Ling] had come to giance known (Chen Shou 陳壽 has been criticized for giv- Sichuan during the reign of Emperor Shun” (64) actually ing a generally positive image of the Caos 曹 and the Simas refers to an excerpt, only translated further on (72), from 司馬 in his Sanguo zhi 三國志). It seems likely that Ge areligious—not historical—source postdating 420. Hong’s Zhang Ling legendarium conflates diachronic tradi- Kleeman rightly stresses that the well-known stele tions: an earlier one depicting him as a lore-master among inscription dated 173 CE is “important” (32) and others, and a later one reflecting his consecration as found- constitutes the “earliest concrete” evidence (74) that there ing grandfather as part of Zhang Lu’s legitimization strate- existed a Celestial Master group in the Chengdu area gy after Lu’s recuperation of the group. This hypothesis is before the “confusing” events of the late second century, both closer to the earliest sources and less conjectural than but he overstates his case. True, the inscription antedates Kleeman’s suspicion that Zhang Xiu may have been “a fol- these events, but by a mere dozen years, not “several dec- lower of the Yellow Turbans” (35).