![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The City God Cults of Tang and Song China by David Johnson was an article written in 1985 and is almost a 100 pages long. Hardly a book review, but rather put here to keep track of the notes for myself.
Historical Background
Johnson traces the earliest descriptions of city gods to Tang times, 4 cases, they are all humans mentioned in the history who became associated with a place. These figures tended to be martial in nature, which goes against the literati bent of the hierarchy ideal of gods in China. Gods are mainly seem to be part of local cults that grow. Once case of a military official who was governor whose shrine took the site of his office.
Other instances of city gods include dragon king, interesting as traditionally dragons have more to do with the weather and water than control of cities. This god controlled both a dragon pool and the city. He seems to be a local god. It is believed that the original god was a "dragon mother" who was supplied with a son, in more masculine times. Johnson gives interesting descriptions on the history of dragon worship and meteorological cults at the time.
When discussing the dragon on 388 Johnson states how, "when the idea of a city god" reached the place they naturally picked their local god and defender as their leader (388) However, he still has not addressed what exactly this idea is or where it came from. He also assumes that the city god is a "celestial magistrate" the idea of bureaucracy following naturally from the idea of a local cult that has no bureaucratic traditions seems to be a fairly fragile argument. Surely it would seem more logical that when the government was trying to classify everyone's gods and take domination over them, they would put the god in a subordinate position to them as their choice, rather than as the people's choice.
"It was natural that the people there choose,…, as their city god". Was election of a city god so democratic?
Context
City gods are a class of gods, not a single deity. Johnson goes on to discuss origins of this type of god. Earliest references to a god of walls and moats comes from the 6th century the idea was firm by the end of the Tang No pre-tang references could be found. The city god is viewed as bureaucratic judges of dead. The new name indicates a new religious idea. First Johnson considers She gods of the soil, ancient territorial gods of China, earth gods, as a possible source for the origins of the city god. These She gods were controlled by the state, but religion continued to be worshiped by the people as the saw fit. Biggest difference seemed to be She gods were impersonal deities, not individuals transformed after death, and were worshiped in villages and rural settings as well as cities.
City god cults spread as cities did, Johnson does not believe that these cults were related or created by the officials. No record of this for Tang times there was no city god for either Tang capital. Johnson then looks at the growth of cities in the south due to economic factors, and this geographical impact on cities gaining city gods. Urban revolution, he argues is directly related to importance of city gods. Johnson then looks at the growth of cities during this time and the effects of urbanisation, particularly on printing, and the growing divide between rural and urban life. He argues that these gods were themselves identified gods of the new city dwellers as they came to define themselves. The only criticism is that in the description the city god lists as the most important god in a city, not the only god. There were still many different gods being worshiped by many different people for a variety of reasons. Question remains, why where they bureaucratic? How did they fit in with the other local, and hierarchical gods? Other religious deities such as Taoist and Buddhist gods?
Johnson then looks at who it was that gave birth to the idea of the city gods, and spread the idea around. He puts this idea at the hands of "the mercantile elite" who he writes were not burdened with the Confucian, or a classical education. I would challenge this idea as I thought that it the merchants were very much seeking after acceptance by the Confucian elite, their children during this time period were able to take exams for the first time and become part of the bureaucratic elite. They were seeking acceptance from the classics, rather than doing their own thing. They were the children who were attending the local schools and gaining acceptance in orthodox society. Also separate transmission of "lower" merchants have been traced to SPECIFIC, gods, different cults of individual gods have been traced throughout the geography of a region. (Hansen 1990) Would they have been able to support their own gods, the Confucian ideals, and this new idea? Johnson says that the texts do not support his hypothesis, but states they were written by the elite, and therefore are biased.
Content
What were the city gods? Johnson identifies three types, the moral exemplar, a local strongman who opened the region to settlement, and lastly the beloved official. What did they have in common? They were all the spirits of powerful human beings, Johnson looks at the historical conflicts of official religion and local cults. Interestingly enough earlier Johnson argued that the She gods were part of the official cult towards the earth god, and that therefore anything in contrast to them would have to come from outside. Here however he seems to be arguing that the She gods represented the local popular god and were portrayed as outside the bureaucratic sphere of influence of the government and that they were portrayed by the elite as troublesome demons outside their jurisdiction and control. I believe that the second picture is closer to the truth and that the city gods, as represented as bureaucratic, were the governments attempts to gain control over these un-unified local gods and to bring them in under there control and their power. Despite his own interpretation Johnson seems to show this point in his example of how bestial local deities were transformed into human ones by those in control. His argument that the gods took on an identity that would appeal to the elite, from the merchants, seems to go against the original idea that they were set up in direct contrast to the official gods. He also cites the merchants as being educated, which implies in the classical traditions as there was no other way to be educated in China at this time, which is in direct contradiction to his earlier idea that the merchants were responsible for the gods as they were not classically educated. So either the gods came as an opposition to the elite cult of the earth by non-classical merchants, or they were more humane due to the classical beliefs of the merchants. I do not see how he can effectively argue both points.
This article was published in 1985, since then in 1990 Valerie Hansen published her own book, ("the best book on popular religion during the Sung" as described to me by Patricia Ebrey), which looks at how religion was transformed during the Song and that many gods were humans who had died and cults had grown around them. Therefore the humanisation of the city gods was not something that was related to this type of god alone, but was part of a larger religious transformation that was happening at the time. In "Gods on Walls: A Case of Indian Influence on Chinese Lay Religion?" In Religion and Society in Tang and Sung China. edited by Patricia Buckley Ebrey and Peter N. Gregory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1993, pp. 75-113. Hansen finds a complete different explanation for the growth of city gods in China.
The second notion of the city gods discussed is that of being part of a celestial bureaucracy. He illustrates that city gods were sometimes, but not always, that of an official who held the post in life. I think the idea that all would have had to have been that way to start with to find a elite tradition for the city god to be a bit weak. Surely some of these cities were new, and as has been shown, many older popular ideas of local gods were incorporated into the city gods. The city gods were given charge of things unseen, but this was implied to be a shared power with that of the actual human in governance, who could order the city god as a subordinate. While his illustrations for this part fall back to a later time, that of the Song, I think it can be argued that this clearly shows a link between secular and spiritual power, and that the elite were in control of the city gods, and that they were no longer seen as being in opposition to human bureaucratic power.
As judges of the morals of the city, it would be interesting to relate this work to the growing idea of judgement of the dead that had been occurring in Buddhism and Taoism at the same time as illustrated by Teiser. Could the judging of the people in the city, be a Confucian attempt to incorporate this idea into the state ideology? I have no evidence for this it just seems like a question worth exploring.
Johnson seems to trace the idea of divine officials back to the Sui-Tang transition, however the idea of a bureaucratic order to the gods has proved to have been much earlier than that. (Must attempt to track down that article) He cites the growing importance of the bureaucracy in Tang times as key to this idea, however during the later Tang destabilisation, and decentralisation was occurring, particularly in hand with the rise of the mercantile class. Perhaps this focus, less on a central power, and more on local control, could be seen to be a contributor to this development.
Johnson shows how the city gods were bolstering to the local officials, but very little evidence of how they were beneficial to the merchants. I believe that his initial hypothesis seems to have been the correct one. This seems more in keeping with other things I have read on religious traditions during the Tang and Sung times. I also find would have liked him to have touched on where the Taoist and Buddhist influences were in all of this. Tang and Sung China, as he himself notes, were times of great flourishing of these religions, however in his descriptions and explanations he makes no note of any religious belief or influence beyond that of the local religion, and that of Confucianism.
Historical Background
Johnson traces the earliest descriptions of city gods to Tang times, 4 cases, they are all humans mentioned in the history who became associated with a place. These figures tended to be martial in nature, which goes against the literati bent of the hierarchy ideal of gods in China. Gods are mainly seem to be part of local cults that grow. Once case of a military official who was governor whose shrine took the site of his office.
Other instances of city gods include dragon king, interesting as traditionally dragons have more to do with the weather and water than control of cities. This god controlled both a dragon pool and the city. He seems to be a local god. It is believed that the original god was a "dragon mother" who was supplied with a son, in more masculine times. Johnson gives interesting descriptions on the history of dragon worship and meteorological cults at the time.
When discussing the dragon on 388 Johnson states how, "when the idea of a city god" reached the place they naturally picked their local god and defender as their leader (388) However, he still has not addressed what exactly this idea is or where it came from. He also assumes that the city god is a "celestial magistrate" the idea of bureaucracy following naturally from the idea of a local cult that has no bureaucratic traditions seems to be a fairly fragile argument. Surely it would seem more logical that when the government was trying to classify everyone's gods and take domination over them, they would put the god in a subordinate position to them as their choice, rather than as the people's choice.
"It was natural that the people there choose,…, as their city god". Was election of a city god so democratic?
Context
City gods are a class of gods, not a single deity. Johnson goes on to discuss origins of this type of god. Earliest references to a god of walls and moats comes from the 6th century the idea was firm by the end of the Tang No pre-tang references could be found. The city god is viewed as bureaucratic judges of dead. The new name indicates a new religious idea. First Johnson considers She gods of the soil, ancient territorial gods of China, earth gods, as a possible source for the origins of the city god. These She gods were controlled by the state, but religion continued to be worshiped by the people as the saw fit. Biggest difference seemed to be She gods were impersonal deities, not individuals transformed after death, and were worshiped in villages and rural settings as well as cities.
City god cults spread as cities did, Johnson does not believe that these cults were related or created by the officials. No record of this for Tang times there was no city god for either Tang capital. Johnson then looks at the growth of cities in the south due to economic factors, and this geographical impact on cities gaining city gods. Urban revolution, he argues is directly related to importance of city gods. Johnson then looks at the growth of cities during this time and the effects of urbanisation, particularly on printing, and the growing divide between rural and urban life. He argues that these gods were themselves identified gods of the new city dwellers as they came to define themselves. The only criticism is that in the description the city god lists as the most important god in a city, not the only god. There were still many different gods being worshiped by many different people for a variety of reasons. Question remains, why where they bureaucratic? How did they fit in with the other local, and hierarchical gods? Other religious deities such as Taoist and Buddhist gods?
Johnson then looks at who it was that gave birth to the idea of the city gods, and spread the idea around. He puts this idea at the hands of "the mercantile elite" who he writes were not burdened with the Confucian, or a classical education. I would challenge this idea as I thought that it the merchants were very much seeking after acceptance by the Confucian elite, their children during this time period were able to take exams for the first time and become part of the bureaucratic elite. They were seeking acceptance from the classics, rather than doing their own thing. They were the children who were attending the local schools and gaining acceptance in orthodox society. Also separate transmission of "lower" merchants have been traced to SPECIFIC, gods, different cults of individual gods have been traced throughout the geography of a region. (Hansen 1990) Would they have been able to support their own gods, the Confucian ideals, and this new idea? Johnson says that the texts do not support his hypothesis, but states they were written by the elite, and therefore are biased.
Content
What were the city gods? Johnson identifies three types, the moral exemplar, a local strongman who opened the region to settlement, and lastly the beloved official. What did they have in common? They were all the spirits of powerful human beings, Johnson looks at the historical conflicts of official religion and local cults. Interestingly enough earlier Johnson argued that the She gods were part of the official cult towards the earth god, and that therefore anything in contrast to them would have to come from outside. Here however he seems to be arguing that the She gods represented the local popular god and were portrayed as outside the bureaucratic sphere of influence of the government and that they were portrayed by the elite as troublesome demons outside their jurisdiction and control. I believe that the second picture is closer to the truth and that the city gods, as represented as bureaucratic, were the governments attempts to gain control over these un-unified local gods and to bring them in under there control and their power. Despite his own interpretation Johnson seems to show this point in his example of how bestial local deities were transformed into human ones by those in control. His argument that the gods took on an identity that would appeal to the elite, from the merchants, seems to go against the original idea that they were set up in direct contrast to the official gods. He also cites the merchants as being educated, which implies in the classical traditions as there was no other way to be educated in China at this time, which is in direct contradiction to his earlier idea that the merchants were responsible for the gods as they were not classically educated. So either the gods came as an opposition to the elite cult of the earth by non-classical merchants, or they were more humane due to the classical beliefs of the merchants. I do not see how he can effectively argue both points.
This article was published in 1985, since then in 1990 Valerie Hansen published her own book, ("the best book on popular religion during the Sung" as described to me by Patricia Ebrey), which looks at how religion was transformed during the Song and that many gods were humans who had died and cults had grown around them. Therefore the humanisation of the city gods was not something that was related to this type of god alone, but was part of a larger religious transformation that was happening at the time. In "Gods on Walls: A Case of Indian Influence on Chinese Lay Religion?" In Religion and Society in Tang and Sung China. edited by Patricia Buckley Ebrey and Peter N. Gregory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1993, pp. 75-113. Hansen finds a complete different explanation for the growth of city gods in China.
The second notion of the city gods discussed is that of being part of a celestial bureaucracy. He illustrates that city gods were sometimes, but not always, that of an official who held the post in life. I think the idea that all would have had to have been that way to start with to find a elite tradition for the city god to be a bit weak. Surely some of these cities were new, and as has been shown, many older popular ideas of local gods were incorporated into the city gods. The city gods were given charge of things unseen, but this was implied to be a shared power with that of the actual human in governance, who could order the city god as a subordinate. While his illustrations for this part fall back to a later time, that of the Song, I think it can be argued that this clearly shows a link between secular and spiritual power, and that the elite were in control of the city gods, and that they were no longer seen as being in opposition to human bureaucratic power.
As judges of the morals of the city, it would be interesting to relate this work to the growing idea of judgement of the dead that had been occurring in Buddhism and Taoism at the same time as illustrated by Teiser. Could the judging of the people in the city, be a Confucian attempt to incorporate this idea into the state ideology? I have no evidence for this it just seems like a question worth exploring.
Johnson seems to trace the idea of divine officials back to the Sui-Tang transition, however the idea of a bureaucratic order to the gods has proved to have been much earlier than that. (Must attempt to track down that article) He cites the growing importance of the bureaucracy in Tang times as key to this idea, however during the later Tang destabilisation, and decentralisation was occurring, particularly in hand with the rise of the mercantile class. Perhaps this focus, less on a central power, and more on local control, could be seen to be a contributor to this development.
Johnson shows how the city gods were bolstering to the local officials, but very little evidence of how they were beneficial to the merchants. I believe that his initial hypothesis seems to have been the correct one. This seems more in keeping with other things I have read on religious traditions during the Tang and Sung times. I also find would have liked him to have touched on where the Taoist and Buddhist influences were in all of this. Tang and Sung China, as he himself notes, were times of great flourishing of these religions, however in his descriptions and explanations he makes no note of any religious belief or influence beyond that of the local religion, and that of Confucianism.