Prof. Morrison's Power of Patriarchs: Qisong and Lineage in Chinese Buddhism, based on the author's Ph.D. dissertation, is a richly detailed study of the Buddhist monk Mingjiao Qisong 明教契嵩 (1007–1072) and his campaign to have his corpus of “True Lineage texts” accepted by the Renzong emperor's court. The author first guides readers through scholarship on genealogies in Chinese Buddhism, and then meticulously examines the life of Qisong as he gained access to elite circles of the Northern Song. The result is a fascinating study of an individual monk at court. The book concludes with an extended close reading of Qisong's Chuanfazhengzonglun 傳法正宗論 (“The Critical Essay on the True Lineage of the Transmission of the Dharma,” hereafter Critical Essay). A complete annotated translation is included, an exciting addendum not found in the author's dissertation.

In this work, Morrison asserts that Qisong is a “creative traditionalist”, a conservative monk as well as a participant in the literary and intellectual culture of Song Dynasty China (pp. 6–7). This is in contrast to portrayals of Qisong as a “Confucian Buddhist” (ruseng 儒僧), which have limited our understanding of his actual views and significance. His Confucian learning and Chan Buddhist commitments form one project, challenging “certain assumptions about him as unfounded, particularly the view of him as a sort of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, a mild-mannered ‘Confucian monk’ by day and a history-distorting sectarian zealot by night” (p. 226). It is the goal of this work to explore how Qisong maintained a unified intellectual project, and to see beyond the apparent tensions of being both Buddhist and Chinese.

Qisong is most famous for the sophistication of his historiographical techniques. The author addresses historians of Chinese Buddhism such as Chen Yuan and Jan Yün-hua, who hold critical views of Qisong's True Lineage texts as early, failed attempts at modern historiography. Instead of framing Qisong as an inadequate historiographer, Morrison takes Qisong's “commitment to the Chan tradition – as opposed to his commitment to ‘truth’” as the guiding principle of his True Lineage texts (p. 9). Morrison argues that if we view Qisong as a religious thinker, we can understand these texts better. She writes, “I have tried to regard lineage narratives as historically faulty but religiously important and to not move past them but to move through them” (p. 225).

The book has six chapters divided into three parts. Each part uses different sources to present disparate perspectives on Qisong and lineage. Part 1 is a review of the macro-religious-history to which Qisong was heir. Chapter 1, entitled “Buddhist Notions of Transmission,” introduces the topic of authority and lineage in India and China through a thoughtful review of the literature that informs her study. In its broadest strokes, this chapter addresses the theory, first put forward by Tang Yongtong, that three factors contributed to the emergence of lineage as a religious idea in China: (1) a shift in attention from śāstra (commentarial literature) to sūtra (scriptures); (2) a shift in emphasis from texts to persons; and (3) the growing confidence of Chinese Buddhist leaders.Footnote ¹ Deemphasizing the differences between so-called “schools,” Morrison asserts a common culture in monastic Buddhism. She judiciously applies earlier scholarship on particular sects and groups to the broader religious communities of medieval China.Footnote ² Elsewhere in Chapter 4, she links the Song Tiantai revival and its intra-sectarian search for orthodoxy to the doctrinal and political conflicts between Chan and Tiantai partisans.

Chapter 2 focuses on the emergence of Chan lineages and engages closely with leading scholarship from Japan and the West. This is a careful reconsideration of the relevant work of the late Prof. Yanagida Seizan 柳田聖山 together with the contributions by his many students in the West. Anyone interested in the subject of Chan literature in the Tang will find a profitable return on time spent combing the author's meticulous notes. Her narrative includes concise summaries of recent scholarship on the emergence of Daoist lineages in the mid-Tang and Confucian conceptions of lineage in the Tang and Song.

Part 2 of this study is divided between an examination of a monk's life in Song China and his campaign for the imperial imprimatur. Chapter 3 turns on the biography of Qisong and offers rich documentation for Song Dynasty education's role in the development of young monks. Morrison works through both Buddhist and non-canonical sources. At this point in particular, the author displays a remarkable ability to integrate elements of Japanese, Chinese, and Western scholarship into a coherent historical narrative. Deft synopses of Qisong's major works are woven into this telling of his life, making the chapter a valuable reference for any future scholar who approaches Qisong's oeuvre.

Chapter 4 focuses on the interactions between the Renzong imperial court and the monk Qisong. Morrison determines that the most decisive factor for the inclusion of the True Lineage texts in the imperially sponsored Buddhist canon was the lack of clarity about imperial succession during the latter years of the Renzong emperor's reign. “Qisong's call for clarity in the line of spiritual descent in the Chan school may very well have struck a nerve at court” (p. 156). Morrison's astute analyses of the complicated attitudes of literati and the wider court toward aspects of religions and Buddhism are quite sensitive.

Part 3, Chapters 5 and 6, is a close reading of the Critical Essay. In these chapters together with the annotated translation in the appendix, Morrison has succeeded in bringing Qisong's text into conversation with both contemporaries and historical precedents. Her translations prioritize fidelity and are faithful renditions of the original. Though it is not always seamless, Morrison's language is vibrant and she displays a strong sense for the logic, rhythm, and nuance of Qisong's text.

This work dovetails neatly with other recent publications in Chinese Buddhist Studies on the topic of lineage.Footnote ³ It may be taught fruitfully together with such volumes. Among them, the present volume offers a superior introduction to the topic and lays out broader problems. The book also complements and responds to recent publications on Chan Buddhism in the Song Dynasty, presenting new perspectives on ongoing debates.Footnote ⁴

In response to received ideas about the Chan tradition, the author also hopes this study will be “a good corrective to the model of the spontaneous, iconoclastic Chan master found in classic Chan literature and still taken as fact in too much scholarship.” Though among specialists such studies have not been in fashion for several decades, I agree with Morrison that a sensitive reassessment of the religiosity of scholastic monks has been needed.

In Morrison's portrayal, Qisong was an ardent supporter of Confucian values as well as an energetic defender of Buddhism. Among these apparent contradictions, the author seeks, and justifiably finds, a unified integrity in the life of Qisong. Nonetheless, some of her assertions about his intentions and character appear overstated. Morrison seems to tip the scales, for example, when describing “his presentation of himself as personally disinterested – ‘for the dharma, not for fame’ – and yet passionately concerned with the fate of the dharma” (p. 153). She later concludes “For all his efforts to establish Chan lineage, Qisong seems not to have been a contender in the competition for material patronage” (p. 164). Despite Morrison's general self-awareness, it is difficult not to wonder if this is a naïve reading of Qisong's rhetoric. Continuing her line of argument, Morrison sees Qisong's interest in constructing and defending the larger entities of “Chan” and “Buddhism,” in contrast to just his own lineage, as “more general and less competitive.” It is difficult to support apparent conclusions about Qisong's psychology or intention, such as: “While he may have enjoyed the honors he received, his motive was not to win himself a prestigious position” (p. 165). Such arguments do not establish the integrity of Qisong and instead continue to engage with the old paradigm that Prof. Morrison has lucidly argued should be discarded.

This book is recommended for its finely detailed, lucid syntheses of Japanese, Chinese, and Western scholarship on Chinese religions, and close documentation of a Buddhist monk who goes to the Renzong emperor's court. The publication includes up-to-date footnotes and an updated, comprehensive bibliography, a complete annotated translation of Qisong's Critical Essay not found in the author's dissertation, and a useful finding index per Brill's standards. Morrison's writing is crisp and her chapters are well-structured, making her book a pleasure to read. I look forward to future publications from her ongoing work on religious authority and lineage.