Moving between Daoist studies and Ming history, Richard G. Wang's Lineages Embedded in Temple Networks: Daoism and Local Society in Ming China is many things at once. It is a study of elite Daoists playing significant roles in both the Ming state and society; an account of late-imperial models of Daoist lineages and their interactions with various local networks; and an exploration of the religious dimensions of Ming imperial governance. Such a tripartite history of Ming Daoism, state, and local society is doubtless challenging, but Wang does it with great rigor. His extensive archival research and fieldwork, as well as frequent engagement with scholarly studies in multiple fields, have together yielded an exciting new book on Ming China.
Wang portrays local society in Ming China as diverging significantly from the well-known gentry model of late imperial Chinese society developed by scholars over the past several decades. The gentry model is based primarily on evidence provided by Confucian literati, particularly those from southern China after the sixteenth century. According to this model, the Ming state offered Confucian literati a legally protected, elite social status by virtue of passing the prefectural level of the civil service examinations. These degree-holding literati formed a privileged gentry class and dominated the leadership of local society through establishing influential social institutions supported by Neo-Confucian ideology, such as kinship lineages.Footnote 1
In contrast, Wang's book highlights a parallel model in which elite Daoists also played a key role in the social and cultural life of local society, “by mediating between local networks—biological lineages, territorial communities, temples, and festivals—and the state” (18). Here his work, which continues his earlier study of Ming Daoism and princes, joins a wave of recent scholarship on Ming history aimed at uncovering the history of marginalized or neglected groups and practices by decentering literati writings.Footnote 2
At its core, Lineages Embedded in Temple Networks studies how interactions among various clerical, state, and local forces and their institutions shaped local social structures. To offer a comprehensive perspective on Ming society, the book delves into a diverse array of individuals, groups, and institutions beyond elite Daoists and literati, including Ming princes, salt merchants, military households, and pilgrim associations. As a result, the book uncovers not only the extent of Daoist influence over local temples and organizations beyond their control, but also the pivotal role played by Jiangnan literati in the rise of specific Quanzhen Daoist lineages. The intricate web of social relations and the mutually embedded local networks, as portrayed in the book, remind us of the importance of acknowledging both the validity and limitation of the gentry model—or any other model featuring the dominance of a single social group—as an analytical framework for understanding late imperial Chinese society.
Overall, Lineages Embedded in Temple Networks makes a significant contribution, living up to its promise as “the first comprehensive study of Daoism and local society in the Ming dynasty” (11). Previous scholarly studies of Ming Daoism, as Wang laments, are few and overlook “the local Daoist institution, including its temple networks” (13). Intending to fill this gap, Wang claims that the book will “systematically contextualize and historicize Ming Daoism in local society from the vantage point of lineages embedded in temple networks” (17). In general, this intended purpose has been fulfilled.
First and foremost, the book places “lineages embedded in temple networks” at the forefront as the overarching analytical framework, firmly situated within a solid historical and historiographical foundation. Within the context of the book, the term “lineages” denotes various Daoist lineages and their clergy from different Daoist schools. The term “temple networks” should not be construed solely as networks of Daoist abbeys affiliated with or controlled by a specific Daoist lineage. It encompasses networks of both important Daoist abbeys and temples of local territorial cults, where elite Daoists and their lineages exerted control or had a significant presence. These temple networks were, in Wang's words, “the nodes of local communities and Daoist lineages” (13). The phrase “lineages embedded in temple networks” thus underscores two fundamental traits of Daoism in Ming China: lineage organization based on lineage poems and localism.
The phrase “lineages embedded in temple networks” combines several theoretical models developed over the past two decades, including those of Kenneth Dean, David Faure, Vincent Goossaert, Johan Lagerwey, Michael Szonyi, and Zheng Zhenman.Footnote 3 These efforts characterize late imperial China as a society rooted in kinship lineages and centered on temples. The model of a lineage-based society, as described by Faure, Szonyi, and Zheng, underscores the prominence of kinship lineages as the primary structure in many regions across south China. Meanwhile, the concept of a temple-centric society, elaborated by Lagerwey, emphasizes the emergence of temple networks, encompassing temples dedicated to a wide range of deities, along with the town festivals and village ritual alliances associated with these temples. Goossaert's theory of Daoist “central temples” sheds light on a group of temples that were located in central places in local society, were controlled by elite Daoist priests, and served as centers for training Daoist priests and transmitting Daoist liturgies and lineages. Wang's perspective aligns with these scholars, recognizing both kinship lineages and temple networks as vital local organizations in late imperial China. Building on Dean's approach to explore interaction between lineages and temple networks, Wang shifts the focus of “lineage” from kinship to religious entities and expands the “lineage-temple interaction” pattern from a regional to a transregional context.
By elaborating on “lineages embedded in temple networks,” Wang's main argument consists of two claims. First, elite Daoists played pivotal roles in mediating between local society and the state in Ming China. Second, they could do so because they established their own organization in clerical lineages and they controlled central temples—some of which belonged to their lineages and other not—that “were nodes of local social structures” (18).
To substantiate this argument, Wang uses Daoist Master Liu Yuanran 劉淵然 (1351–1432) and his Qingwei lineage as a central thread that ties together diverse topics. This choice is not just valid but also judicious. In both Ming-era and modern scholarly works, Liu was credited with representing all four most important Daoist traditions in the Ming—Qingwei, Jingming, Longhushan, and Quanzhen. Liu and his disciples were active both at the imperial court and in local societies across several provinces. The success of this lineage throughout the Ming resulted in the production of a wide range of sources related to it, including Liu's Record of Conversations edited by his disciple, Liu's epitaph and recently excavated tomb, Daoist liturgical texts used by Liu and his disciples, mountain gazetteers like Monograph of Maoshan reprinted by Liu's disciples, and stele inscriptions about them and their temples. Wang also undertook fieldwork in various sites associated with the Liu Yuanran lineage and uncovered valuable local sources. The extensive religious and sociopolitical connections of Liu's lineage, combined with the abundance of sources, allow Lineages Embedded in Temple Networks to present a new account of Daoism at the local level in Ming China.
Wang develops his main argument over two parts, each consisting of four chapters. Chapters 1 and 2 provide an overview of Ming Daoist lineages and Liu Yuanran himself, including his teachings and lineage identity. Having firmly established that Liu's lineage was first and foremost associated with the Qingwei branch of Daoism, in chapters 3 and 4 Wang explores the lineage's service in the Ming state bureaucracy. Chapter 3 specifically studies the lineage's development through its central temples and the crucial roles its priests played in both the Daoist Offices and other state ritual agencies. It illustrates how their positions within the imperial government enabled the lineage to engage with, and sometimes even compete against, other prestigious Daoist institutions such as the Heavenly Master on Mount Longwu. Chapter 4, meanwhile, shifts the focus to the joint efforts of Daoists and Emperor Jiajjing to promote Mount Qiyun as a replica of Mount Wudang, the holiest mountain in the Ming and the center of imperial worship of Zhenwu (Perfected Warrior). The revelations concerning Mount Qiyun sheds new light on how imperial succession—yet another key kinship lineage—in the Ming consistently influenced the empire's religious landscape, especially during Jiajing's reign (1522–66).
Chapters 5 to 8, which form Part Two, contribute to the book's overall argument by demonstrating how several Daoist lineages, especially the Liu Yuanran Qingwei lineage, connected to local society through intricate temple networks and other local institutions. The four chapters explore four distinctive localities: Tianjin (a city adjacent to the imperial capital Beijing), Maoshan (a Daoist holy mountain), Jiangxi (a hinterland province), and Yunnan (a frontier province in the southwest). The Tianjin sample serves as a compelling testament to how the Liu Yuanran lineage exerted influence on local society. As temple-dwelling priests, the members of the lineage managed the influential Tianfei Palace, dedicated to the popular goddess Mazu, who was known for bestowing blessings upon maritime travel, trade, and women's fertility. Daoists from the lineage not only conducted typical Daoist rituals as part of their daily life at the Palace but also integrated Daoist rituals into significant temple festivals, including the processions held in celebration of Tianfei's birthday. Moreover, the Liu Yuanran lineage established a liturgical and organizational framework for the temple network of the Tianfei Palace through the managerial roles of their priests at both the Palace and its subsidiary temples.
Above all, the discoveries in most individual chapters make significant contributions to the field of Daoist studies. For example, in chapter 2, Wang corrects the enduring error of identifying Liu Yuanran with Quanzhen Daoism, a view many modern scholars of Daoism still hold. Wang presents a persuasive argument that this misconception was deliberately fabricated by the late Qing Quanzhen Daoist Chen Minggui 陈铭珪 (1823–81) in his 1879 book titled Changchun daojiao yuanliu 长春道教源流 (Origins and development of the Daoist teaching of [Qiu] Changchun [i.e. Chuji]). As Wang points out, this text has frequently been cited by modern scholars when discussing Quanzhen Daoism in the Ming, often accepting Chen's assertions at face value. Similarly, in chapter 7, which explores the temple networks and the Daoist school of Jingming in Jiangxi province, Wang shows that the connection of Liu Yuanran with the Jingming tradition was not rooted in history but was instead a product of historiography, more specifically, a particular version of an influential Jingming genealogy titled Jingming Zhongxiao quanshu 淨明忠孝全書 (Complete writings of the Pure and Bright [Way of] Loyalty and Filiality). Wang traces the various textual sources of this Jingming genealogy, demonstrating that it was Liu's disciple, Shao Yizheng, who claimed Liu Yuanran as the sixth Jingming patriarch when he wrote a postface for the genealogy, which was first compiled around 1327 and reprinted by Shao in 1452. Importantly, as Wang points out, earlier versions of the genealogy before 1452 did not associate Liu with the Jingming tradition.
The Yunnan case discussed in chapter 8 serves as a prime example of Wang's central argument concerning the deep local roots of Daoist lineages in late imperial China. Evidence comes from eight temple steles from the Xuning'an, a major Daoist establishment in Kunming, the capital city of Yunnan. Wang reveals that a group of Daoists who claimed religious descent from Liu Yuanran's lineage first established the Xuning'an temple around the mid-fifteenth century and transmitted their teachings there until the mid-sixteenth century. Yet, they did not identify themselves with Liu's actual Qingwei lineage but claimed a Quanzhen lineage known as Changchun, with Liu Yuanran as their patriarch. This early episode of Xuning'an history shows how Liu Yuanran's supposed Quanzhen identity was initially concocted by a remotely related local Daoist lineage before the more influential narrative created by Chen Minggui. In the latter part of the Xuning'an history, Wang identifies a local variation of the Longmen lineage that operated independently from the Longmen orthodox lineage associated with Wang Changyue 王常月 (d. 1680). These findings not only rectify the misconception of Liu Yuanran as a Quanzhen master but also challenge previous scholarly understandings of the significant Longmen lineage in Quanzhen Daoism in late imperial China.
An ambitious project like Wang's inevitably has shortcomings. One shortcoming is the book's structure. By separating the state and local society into two separate sections, the book weakens its own argument about the role of elite Daoists as intermediaries between state and society. Mirroring the two-part structure, most chapters tend to segregate discussions about Daoism and the state from those pertaining to Daoism and local society. Thus, the book sacrifices overall narrative cohesiveness in favor of the details and subtopics of each individual chapter. For example, the Maoshan case in chapter 6 leaves unclear how Daoist priests and their temples on the mountain “functioned to bring together and mediate between the local society and the imperial state” (251), as the book promises to show. The chapter relegates to separate sections to discuss the roles of Daoist priests within state bureaucracy and their economic connections to the local society. As a result, analyses of the Daoist association with the state and the local society span different facets of Daoist activities, with limited attention given to the interplay between these two aspects.
Similarly, in the case of Jiangxi, discussed in chapter 7, Wang hardly touches upon the topic of state–society relations, although the chapter is a great contribution to the study of the Jingming Daoist movement in the Ming. More importantly, the proliferation of discussions concerning the Liu Yuanran lineage in Jiangxi across different chapters exacerbates the confusion. On the one hand, while Liu and his disciples were once again positioned as elite Daoists, the lineage, as the chapter shows, had little significant involvement with the Jingming temple network and cultic practice in Jiangxi. In the two sections discussing Daoist interactions with local society in Jiangxi, there is a noticeable absence of elite Daoists or the imperial state. On the other hand, about thirty pages later, the Conclusion includes two paragraphs describing activities of Liu and his disciples, as well as their transmission of Qingwei ritual texts in Jiangxi (254–255). Juxtaposing what Wang describes as “demonstrated transmission” and “stipulated transmission” of Liu's Qingwei and Jingming lineages in Jiangxi in chapter 7 would have allowed a more coherent presentation of the lineage's historical and reconstructed presence. The Conclusion could have offered a more robust analysis of how the Liu Yuanran lineage's geographical expansion and regional transformations provide new insights into state-society interactions in the Ming empire.
The book also has several minor flaws that hinder its overall clarity and coherence. The long paragraphs sometimes obscure analysis. For example, a single paragraph about a salt merchant who became a Daoist priest spans more than an entire page (182–184), and another paragraph discussing a Xia lineage's involvement in local temple festivals covers pages 216–218. The second flaw lies in the obscurity of certain sources the book uses. In several instances, Wang mentions a database he created, which enabled him to reconstruct the Liu Yuanran Qingwei lineage by matching the ordination names of Liu's master and disciples with a reconstructed lineage poem (see 157, 169). It would have been beneficial to provide an appendix explaining what the database includes and how he constructed it; readers cannot assess the persuasiveness of the arguments that rely on a set of unidentified sources. Last, the book frequently incorporates extensive quotations from the works of other scholars; constructive dialogue would have asserted Wang's own voice more prominently.
Lineages Embedded in Temple Networks is by no means the final word on the interactions of Daoism and Ming state and society. Yet, as the first book-length study on the topic in English scholarship, it is an important addition to both Daoist studies and Ming history, greatly expanding our understanding of the religious dimension of the Ming state apparatus as well as the local, social dimensions of the Daoist lineage movement in late imperial China. The ongoing ramifications of the similarly complex interactions between religion, local organizations, and the state in contemporary China after the 1980s make this book essential reading for students of Chinese religions and local societies well beyond the Ming period.
