123
of the Chinese and Roman religious systems.
18
At the outset, it should be remarked that there are important differences between the two systems, and that these differences should not be minimized. There is, for example, no set of canonical books in Roman religion akin to those associated with the name of Confucius, nor did the masses of the Roman Empire superimpose the structure of their government upon the celestial pantheon as their Chinese counterparts have done. Nevertheless, there are many important structural similarities. Both have an official religion, consisting in each case of a select circle of functional deities for whom minutely regulated sacrifices are conducted by an equally small circle of officiants, and from whose activities the population at large is excluded. Alongside, there exists in both societies a publicly sanctioned domestic religion, whose centerpiece is the maintenance of the dead, but which contains additional elements such as the guardians of the hearth and household. Finally, there is the large and amorphous category of popular religion, which at times encroaches upon the spheres of the official and domestic cults. It is here that one encounters demonology, witchcraft, and shamanism; it is here that some of the exclusivist official cults find rivals with mass appeal, such as the corn-goddess Ceres in her plebeian guise, and the Taoist worship of the tutelary gods of walls and moats. It is here as well that one comes into contact with the intrusive foreign sects, such as Christianity and Buddhism, who assured themselves of large followings by holding out the promise of salvation, but whose threat to the existing social order ended in persecution.20 Given these similarities, an exchange of views and concerns between ancient historians and sinologues would appear highly desirable, for it has the potential to break new ground in both fields. Indeed, from the point of view of the classical historian, China offers the inestimable advantage of a religious system with an unbroken history stretching back more than two millennia that remains vital to this day, so that it may be approached from an anthropological as well as historical perspective. It is unfortunate in this respect that virtually all of the field work carried out in the last 35 years has been restricted to Taiwan and the New Territories of Hong Kong, which are well-removed from the centres of Chinese culture. This limits our
123
of the Chinese and Roman religious systems.
18
At the outset, it should be remarked that there are important differences between the two systems, and that these differences should not be minimized. There is, for example, no set of canonical books in Roman religion akin to those associated with the name of Confucius, nor did the masses of the Roman Empire superimpose the structure of their government upon the celestial pantheon as their Chinese counterparts have done. Neverthe- less, there are many important structural similarities. Both have an official religion, consisting in each case of a select circle of functional deities for whom minutely regulated sacrifices are conducted by an equally small circle of officiants, and from whose activities the population at large is excluded. Alongside, there exists in both societies a publicly sanctioned domestic religion, whose centerpiece is the maintenance of the dead, but which contains additional elements such as the guardians of the hearth and household. Finally, there is the large and amorphous category of popular religion, which at times encroaches upon the spheres of the official and domestic cults. It is here that one encounters demonology, witchcraft, and shamanism; it is here that some of the exclusivist official cults find rivals with mass appeal, such as the corn-goddess Ceres in her plebeian guise, and the Taoist worship of the tutelary gods of walls and moats." It is here as well that one comes into contact with the intrusive foreign sects, such as Christianity and Buddhism, who assured themselves of large followings by holding out the promise of salvation, but whose threat to the existing social order ended in persecution.20 Given these similarities, an exchange of views and concerns between ancient historians and sinologues would ap- pear highly desirable, for it has the potential to break new ground in both fields. Indeed, from the point of view of the classical historian, China offers the inestimable advantage of a religious system with an unbroken history stretching back more than two millenia that remains vital to this day, so that it may be approached from an anthropological as well as historical per- spective. It is unfortunate in this respect that virtually all of the field work carried out in the last 35 years has been restricted to Taiwan and the New Territories of Hong Kong, which are well- removed from the centres of Chinese culture. This limits our
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.