Li Deyu (787–850): Religion und Politik in der Tang-Zeit by Michael Höckelmann

Abstract

MICHAEL HÖCKELMANN, Li Deyu (787–850): Religion und Politik in der Tang-Zeit. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2016. 297 pp. NICHOLAS MORROW WILLIAMS University of Hong Kong At first sight Li Deyu 李德裕 seems one of the most impressive men of the Tang: two-time chief minister, thoughtful reformer, and eloquent writer across genres—apparently comparable to a Han Yu 韓愈 or Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修. In reality, of course, he is one of the most neglected of eminent Tang writers, not accorded an entry in the Indiana Companion to Traditional Chinese Literature, for instance, and not previously accorded a monograph in any Western language. The reasons for this neglect are easy to identify. In spite of Li Deyu’s prominence at the courts of Wenzong and Wuzong, his career ended in disgrace and rustication to Hainan island, and his political legacy was modest. With regard to his writings, even Höckelmann in the volume under review asks plaintively, “Is his oeuvre not too mediocre and he as author not too unprepossessing for us to involve ourselves any more deeply with either one?” (p. 249; my translations here and below). In reality, though, Li’s numerous essays are well-argued and polished, and have been disregarded only because they have been unfairly left out of the guwen historical narrative , in spite of their obvious and weighty debt to Han prose. Finally, Li’s poetic production is most original in the genre of fu, an area of Tang literature that has long been overlooked out of arbitrary prejudice.1 Of late, however, the study of Li Deyu has been in the ascendant. Following Muir’s 1997 dissertation surveying his life and work, and Knight’s 2014 dissertation more narrowly dedicated to his fu, we now have Michael Höckelmann’s elegantly composed and compellingly concise study that brings Li to life within his political and, especially, politico-religious context.2 Höckelmann’s approach has two distinctive features, one traditional and one possibly groundbreaking. First, after an introduction and survey of Li’s biography, the heart of this study consists of four meaty chapters centered around essays from Li’s collection Qiongchou zhi 窮愁志, compiled in Hainan in 849 just before his death. Höckelmann’s accurate translations of these essays are preceded by extensive contextualization that explains the issues at stake and historical precedents for each essay. These translations alone would make the book a worthy addition to anyone’s library, but Höckelmann also coordinates his readings of the individual pieces into a more ambitious argument about Li Deyu’s religious significance. Borrowing from Bourdieu, Höckelmann asserts the existence of a “religious field in medieval China” that allots proper recognition to the various roles of literati, laity, Buddhist and Daoist clergy, and the emperor himself (see esp. the diagram on p. 248). In a thoughtful and wide-ranging 1 See Paul W. Kroll’s seminal survey, “On the Significance of the fu in the History of Tang Poetry,” T’ang Studies 18–19 (2000–2001): 87–105, with pertinent remarks on Li Deyu at pp. 98–99. 2 Jovana Catriona Muir, “Li Deyu 李德裕 (787–850): His Life, Writing, and Place in Intellectual History” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1997), and David Andrew Knight, “ Li Deyu and the Tang Fu in Ninth-Century China” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 2014). 120 BOOK REVIEWS theoretical chapter, moreover, he argues for moving further away from biased assumptions about “religion” based on Western or modern models towards a more precise recognition of Chinese “orthopraxy” and “state religion” (pp. 235–44). Though the scope of Höckelmann’s theoretical claims sometimes overstrips the textual basis of the study, and their general applicability for medieval China will only be validated by further research, his “expansion of the concept of religion” (“Erweiterung des Religionsbegriff,” p. 245) already proves its utility here by serving as the basis for his insightful readings of Li Deyu’s essays. Though all are worthwhile, chapter 3 deserves special mention for its innovative perspective on the famous Huichang 會昌 persecution of Buddhism in 845. Citing venerable scholarship by Twitchett and Gernet, Höckelmann shows that the economic rationale for the persecution has been overstated (see esp...