In the Forest of the Blind: The Eurasian Journey of Faxian’s Record of Buddhist Kingdoms, written by Matthew W. King

Abstract

drew on political notions and supportive narratives scattered in works by “proto-daoxue historians” such as Sima Guang and Zhao Ruyu (defined on pp. 168–69), as well as non-daoxue historians, including Li Tao and Li Xinchuan. Whereas in these pre-daoxue historical works, there were still tensions between these authors’ historian identity and their political agenda, the tensions dissolved in daoxue histories, started by Zhu Xi, systemized by Chen Jun, and finalized by Lü Zhong. They embraced and developed a daoxue historiography that repackaged and readjusted historical narratives to construct pedagogical histories for moral admonishment (chapter 4). This daoxue historiography was intentionally adopted by Toghto and his Chinese political allies when they had the Song History compiled as their means to triumph in political struggles against the Mongol nativist faction. The second part tracks the formation of the three major themes of the grand allegory—fluorescence of Renzong’s reign, a benevolent foundation set by Taizu, and a lineage of Nefarious ministers. The first two themes grew out of late Northern Song and Early Southern Song politics, particularly “the arrival of the Jurchen, the decline of the New Policies, and the liberation of Yuanyou learning” (p. 286). The concept of a lineage of evil took shape “in the efforts to reimplement literati governance after the assassination of Han Tuozhou in 1207” (p. 314) and shaped by rhythmic repressions of daoxue scholar-officials by autocratic governments. If the first two themes represent the positive forces, the third theme contrasts them with manifestations of negative counterforce. These themes constituted a historiographical scheme of explanatory cyclicity, at the heart of which was the constant struggles between Confucian literati and technocrats. Hartman proposes that an understanding of this dynamic, in turn, would help scholars with critical reading of Song sources free from the grand allegorical framework. Overall, this book not only successfully demonstrates the historiographical process of the making of the Song history but also reveals that the Song was by no means “an age of Confucian rule”; rather, the governance was characterized by competing modalities—which will be the subject of a second volume worth looking forward to.