Memories of Ups and Downs: The Vicissitudes of the Chongshansi in Taiyuan

Abstract

This article traces the erection of and changes in the Buddhist temple of Chongshansi in Taiyuan through the process of spatial production under the social background of the Ming and Qing Dynasties. It is stated that the founding time of the temple complies with the reorganization policies aimed at Buddhist institutions in the early Ming Dynasty, which confirms the setup of the Prefectural Buddhist Registry as the motivation for erecting the temple. Within the spatial structure of Taiyuan in the Ming Dynasty, its relative position with the Princely Palace of Jin (completed in 1375) and the expanded Taiyuan City is analyzed, revealing how its layout participated in the construction of the ritual path of Taiyuan under the control of the palace. The article concludes with a description of the fall of the temple following the loss of protection from the Jin Principality by tracing back its original form through the remains still evident in the city. The vicissitudes of the physical space of the temple are deeply connected to its role in the political space of the city. The article, thus, presents the changes in the temple throughout history. In positioning the temple back to the power and physical space of the imperial court, as well as the Jin Principality, a new perspective is provided into regional monasteries during the Ming Dynasty.

1. Introduction

Chongshansi 崇善寺 is a government-sponsored Buddhist institution erected during the early Ming Dynasty in Taiyuan 太原, Shanxi Province. As one of the few early Ming structures existing to date, this temple offers an extremely rare case for our understanding of architectural monuments of the 14th-century Chinese imperial palace and state temple. Currently, Chongshansi is located in the southeast corner of the old city of Taiyuan, adjacent to Wenmiao 文廟 (the Confucian Temple, now Shanxi Folk Museum) by an alley. It once enjoyed vast land including the current site, as well as the entire area now occupied by the Wenmiao after a devastating fire in the third year of Tongzhi 同治 during the Qing Dynasty (1864). The Great Compassion Hall 大悲殿 that survived the fire is now the main hall of the temple (Figure 1). It is a rare example of a high-ranking official style building in the Hongwu period 洪武 (1368–1398) during the early Ming Dynasty. It enjoys the highest preservation level and among the existing Ming buildings within Shanxi Province, it is the one that has kept its historical style the most. In addition to its architecture, it is also famous for its rich collection of Buddhist sculptures, paintings, and publications, attracting scholarly attention as early as the 1900s1.

The history of Chongshansi can be traced back to the Hongwu period during the Ming Dynasty. It was a royal temple founded by Zhu Gang 朱棡, the Prince Gong of Jin 晉恭王, and the third son of Emperor Hongwu Zhu Yuanzhang 朱元璋. Throughout the Ming Dynasty, it served as the Prefectural Buddhist Registry “Senggang Si” 僧綱司 of Taiyuan, known as the “family temple” 家廟 of the Jin Principality 晉藩. Throughout history, Chongshansi has experienced rises and declines along with the vicissitudes of the Jin Principality and the political changes of the Ming and Qing Dynasties. Studies on the imperial clan 宗藩 of the Ming Dynasty have mainly focused on the political and economic aspects. Since the 21st century, academic interest in the cultural (Wang 2012) and artistic achievements of the imperial clan (Clunas 2013) has gradually increased. Unfortunately, due to a lack of historical materials, specialized studies on the Jin Principality are rare, let alone Chongshansi, a religious site that embraced an intimate relationship with the Princes of Jin. Although studies on the temple buildings appeared early, progress has been limited. In the research context, studies on the temple have mainly been based on Taiyuan Chongshansi wenwu tulu 太原崇善寺文物圖錄 (the catalog of cultural relics of Chongshansi in Taiyuan) (Zhang and An 1987). The architecture and artistic works of Chongshansi introduced to the west by M. S. Weidner (Weidner 2001), for example, came from the Tulu. She interpreted their characteristics as an iconographical representation of the empire’s authority. However, although the Tulu provides a rich documentation, its historicity is not very reliable due to a lack of proper analysis. Discussions on the historical context of the temple, as well as its physical space, are also lacking. To fully understand the historical transformation of the temple, careful studies on the historical facts in the founding phase, as well as the physical traces still left in the surrounding environment, are needed.

To fully grasp the history of Chongshansi, this article refers to multiple historical documents, including the official historical records the Ming Shilu 明實錄 that document the political life of emperors during the Ming Dynasty, the Taizu Huangdi Qinlu 太祖皇帝欽錄 (see Chen 2003) once kept by the Jin Principality and now stored in the Palace Museum in Taipei, and gazetteers of various versions. It also consults the antiques reserved in the temple, including a wooden inscription, The Founding Story of the Temple 建寺緣由, stone inscriptions that document the restoration of the temple, and the Plan of Chongshansi 崇善寺全圖 that depicts the layout of the temple. Furthermore, the preservation project of the Great Compassion Hall starting in 2019 offered an opportunity to carry out an investigation not only on the literature but also on the cultural relics and the temple buildings. On the basis of the physical and textual materials collected from the on-site survey, this article is aimed at analyzing the historical background of the erection of the temple and its relation to the Jin Principality. Its geographical relationship with the newly built Princely Palace reveals its role as the Buddhist registry for the new Dynasty. The new palace generated a new urban ritual axis. It was the temple’s transverse connection with the axis that included it into the ritual spatial system of the Jin Principality within the city of Taiyuan. Unfortunately, with the fall of the Ming Dynasty, the temple no longer occupied a key role in the city. During the Qing Dynasty, the vast land of the temple was gradually abandoned and occupied by other functional buildings. By the time a fire took place in the mid-19th century, the temple had lost most of its land. The ritual lane once connecting the temple to the main road of the city was also interrupted by the emergence of a modern school nearby, which eventually overwhelmed the temple in the quick urbanization following the Qing Dynasty.

2. Historical Background of the Foundation of Chongshansi and Its Official Identity

As Chongshansi is closely related to the Jin Principality, it is necessary to introduce the successive princes first to clarify the historical activities of different Jin generations. The Jin Principality had 13 princes (Figure 2), of which Prince Gong, Prince Ding and his younger brother (a deposed prince), Prince Zhuang, and Prince Jian are connected to our historical survey.

Compared to other monasteries in Taiyuan, Chongshansi played a crucial political role during the early Ming Dynasty. Its founding was intimately connected to a series of religious reorganization policies at that time. In earlier China, Buddhist monasteries usually served as prayer sites for the nation. This function was strengthened after religious regulations issued on Buddhist monasteries during the early Ming Dynasty, during which the Buddhist monasteries helped assist and stabilize national institutions. Chongshansi was constructed by the Prince of Jin precisely as a national institution, and it was the location of the prefectural Buddhist registry Senggang Si of Taiyuan.

The historical literature differs with respect to the founding year of Chongshansi: the sixth year (1373), the 14th year (1381), the 16th year (1383), or the 24th year (1391) of Hongwu. The insufficiency of information makes it impossible to confirm which date is correct. However, it should be noted that, in ancient Chinese literature, the “founding” of temples or monasteries does not necessarily refer to the physical completion of the buildings. More often, it refers to the establishment of the institution. The four dates are all connected to the Buddhist consolidation during the early Ming Dynasty, which explains the “founding” of Chongshansi as an institution.

It is difficult to clearly historize the founding of the temple. The stories of the Prince Gong of Jin in the Hongwu period were to some extent falsified after his younger brother Zhu Di 朱棣 took the throne, becoming Emperor Yongle2 永樂 (Yang 2015; Yang 2021). Moreover, the internal conflicts within the Jin household (Meng and Zhang 2017) from the Yongle to Xuande 宣德 periods (1403–1435) made it unlikely for the Princes of Jin to document minor issues such as the founding of Chongshansi3.

The Chongshansi was not newly built during the Ming Dynasty; at its location, there was a predecessor. The Yuan yitong zhi 元一統志, a gazetteer compiled around 1286 that survived in the Yongle Canon 永樂大典, may provide some useful information. Yuan yitong zhi records that a rebuilt temple called Yanshousi 延壽寺 stood 2 li 里 to the east side of Taiyuan City.4 Chongshansi is 1 km (almost 2 li) away from the east wall of the old city. The Inscription of the Restoration of Chongshansi written by Kong Tianyin 孔天胤 in 1563 also marked the excavation of a stone tablet from Yanshousi5. In this case, at least around 1286 when the Yuan yitong zhi was compiled, there was indeed a temple called Yanshousi at the site where Chongshansi was located.

Furthermore, Chongshansi may have merged before being affirmed as an official temple. Among various sources regarding the founding of the temple, the Shanxi tongzhi (comprehensive gazetteer of Shanxi) published in 1475 mentions that the temple was erected as the merging of two monasteries. It says “Chongshansi was set up in the sixth year of Hongwu with the Senggang Si located therein. Meanwhile, two monasteries, Wenshusi 文殊寺 and Anguosi 安國寺, were merged [into Chongshansi]”.6 The Tulu treats the date of the sixth year as a miswriting of the 16th year of Hongwu. However, this date should not be easily ignored, for it exactly coincided with the time when Emperor Hongwu decreed the order of the merging of temples and monasteries nationwide. There were several mergers of Buddhist temples and monasteries during the reign of Emperor Hongwu. In July of the fifth year of Hongwu (1372), for example, the monks and properties of Tianxisi 天禧寺 and Nengrensi 能仁寺 in Nanjing were merged into Jiangshansi 蔣山寺7. In December of the sixth year of Hongwu, the merger was implemented nationwide, ordering that each prefecture should only keep one temple, with other monasteries being merged and manipulated8 (Du 2013, pp. 40–48). Although some scholars have pointed out that the policy was not thoroughly carried out (He and Li 2018), this was undoubtedly not the case in Taiyuan, one of the most important political and military centers of north China. It is highly possible that Chongshansi underwent an imperial-decreed merger before it started a great bustle of masons and carpenters under the name of Chongshan Chansi 崇善禪寺.

In the restoration inscriptions composed by Prince Zhuang of Jin in 14809 and Prince Jian in 156310, the founding date of Chongshansi is recorded as the 14th year of Hongwu (1381). This was also the year in which Emperor Hongwu tightened his rule over Buddhist institutions. From 1381 onward, Emperor Hongwu’s attitude toward Buddhism changed radically from supportive to discouraging. He ordered the Ministry of Rites to formulate a policy, establishing a bureaucratic structure of Buddhist registries at the national (Senglu Si 僧錄司), prefectural (Senggang Si 僧綱司), sub-prefectural (Sengzheng Si) 僧正司, and county (Senghui Si 僧會司) levels, and this policy was implemented on 24 June 1381. Moreover, he required local monasteries to report to the government their founding members and date to receive an official name plaque from the emperor11 (Brook 2005, p. 127). In April of the following year, Emperor Hongwu commanded the formal setup of bureaucratic institutions12. In May, monasteries all over China were categorized into three types: meditation 禪寺 (to concentrate on meditational exercises), doctrine 講寺 (to study the scriptures to penetrate their meaning), and teaching 教寺 (to go out among the people to preach and conduct rites, especially funerary rites).13 In the same year, on 10 August, Queen Ma, Emperor Hongwu’s wife, passed away.

Several materials regard the death year of Queen Ma as the founding time of the temple. The Founding Story of the Temple, a wooden inscription preserved in the temple, marks the founding of the temple as a memorial to the Queen in the 16th year of Hongwu (1383). This inscription records that the prince asked Marquis Yongping 永平侯 to propose to the emperor to erect a new temple in April of the 16th year of Hongwu (1383). It was constructed under the supervision of General Yuan Hong 袁弘 (see Appendix A.1). The Tulu also takes the death of Queen Ma as significant evidence that the temple was erected by Prince Gong thereafter. However, since the temple was appointed as Senggang Si of Taiyuan, its political role had to have been affirmed before April of the 15th year of Hongwu. In other words, Queen Ma’s death may not be closely related to the temple’s erection, whether physically or institutionally.

The 24th year of Hongwu (1391) is another important date in the history of Buddhism during the Ming Dynasty. There are two pairs of iron lions in front of the Lingxing Gate of Wenmiao and the Great Compassion Hall complex, which are dated Xinwei Year of Hongwu 洪武辛未 (1391) (Figure 3). This complies with the completion of the temple in The Founding Story of the Temple. In June of that year, one of the most heavy-handed policies on Buddhist consolidation during the Ming Dynasty, the Declaration of Buddhist List 申明佛教榜冊, was issued, and its provisions had to be carried out within 100 days. In the following month, another imperial edict was released to “forbid the monastics from having the reside with the lay citizens. A temple with over 30 monks was to house the monks, while a temple with fewer than 20 monks was to be merged with another temple”14. It is this thorough national rectification movement that the “consolidation of Buddhism” 清理佛教事 in the wooden inscription The Founding Story of the Temple refers to. After this movement was conducted in Taiyuan, Prince Gong entitled the temple Chongshan Chansi 崇善禪寺, appointing it the central Buddhist institution in Taiyuan.

Chongshansi became the place for regulating the local Buddhist affairs and staging national Buddhist ceremonies once it was erected. According to the inscription written by Prince Jian in 1563: “after its erection, large ceremonies were held in Chongshansi on every New Year’s Day, the Winter Solstice, the emperor’s birthday, and the reception of the emperor’s envoys for nearly 200 years. It is a place for the Jin Principality to be mourned and should never be abandoned” (see Appendix A.3). It is clear that Chongshansi assumed the responsibility of holding a number of national celebrations. It even acted as the representative of the Jin Principality to receive envoys from the Imperial court. It should be stated that the temple was erected under the guidance of institutional reorganization during the early Ming Dynasty, which accounts for its duty in governing the local Buddhist affairs and conducting state Buddhist rituals within the prince’s territory.

Chongshansi suffered rises and declines during the Ming Dynasty. After Prince Gong’s death, many monasteries under his support soon fell apart. With the reduction in the princes’ military authority starting from the Yongle period (Zhang 1982), Chongshansi also lost its prominent role. It was not until the Chenghua 成化 period (1465–1487) that the temple recovered its strength in local religious institutions with the return of the Jin Principality (see Lü 2020a).

The Founding Story of the Temple also documents land donation to the temple from Prince Ding of Jin 晉定王, the eldest son of Prince Gong (Lü 2020b). In September of the 12th year of Yongle (1414), he granted the temple 9 Qing (ca. 57 ha) of land in memory of his father. He also declared lasting financial support from the family (see Appendix A.1). The Tulu incorrectly dated the making of the wooden inscription as the 12th year of Yongle (1414). Considering “Ding” 定 as his posthumous title 謚號, the wooden inscription, therefore, could only have been made after his death in the 10th year of Xuande (1435). Moreover, “September of the 12th year of Yongle” is a date that points to the change of power within the Jin Principality.

After Prince Gong died suddenly in 1398, his heir apparent Jixi 濟熺 inherited his title. After Emperor Yongle took over the empire by force (1402), Jixi was very often framed for revolt by his younger brother Jihuang 濟熿. In September of the 12th year of Yongle (1414), Jihuang was entitled the Prince of Jin, whereas, in November, Jixi was deprived of royal identity and put under house arrest with his son Meigui 美圭. It was not until nine years later, in 1423, that Emperor Yongle released them and granted Meigui the title of Commandery Prince Pingyang 平陽王. They were forced to leave Taiyuan for Pingyang 平陽 (now the city of Linfen 臨汾). In 1427, Jihuang was deprived of his princely title for participating in revolt, and the position of the Prince of Jin was suspended for eight years. It was not until 1435 that Meigui was entitled the Prince of Jin and returned to Taiyuan. Jixi died before the emperor’s messenger arrived and received the posthumous title of Ding.15

Some scholars consider the internal conflicts within the Jin Principality as the result of the centralized autocratic rule and the reduction in the rights of feudal princes in the Yongle period and thereafter (e.g., Sato 1999, pp. 62–76; Zhang 2006; Meng and Zhang 2017). For the Jin Principality, this turmoil lasted more than 20 years. The Founding Story of the Temple does not mention anything about Jixi’s loss of the position of the imperial prince, but particularly marks the date he donated the land to the temple, the same September that he was deprived of the position by his brother. If the donation date was true, is there a possibility that Jixi transferred his assets voluntarily or involuntarily? Alternatively, was this a deliberate move by Jixi’s descendants to rewrite the sorrowful moment of the past? Whatever the truth is, the donation of property from the prince that lost his power to the temple confirms its delicate position between the imperial court and the Jin Principality. It further verifies that the relationship between the Jin Principality and the imperial court determined the rise or fall of Chongshansi.

3. The Ritual Path between Chongshansi and the Princely Palace

Chongshansi is closely related to Jin Principality not only by ritual jurisdiction but also by its geographical relationship with the Princely Palace of Jin 晉王宮. Among the materials gathered in the Tulu, the Plan of Chongshansi deserves close attention. It is a hanging scroll painting16 that depicts the whole temple in its heyday (Figure 4). The Plan was already photographed in detail in the 1940s (see Li 2003). The renowned architectural historian Liu Dunzhen included the plan together with a diagram of the plan and a restored bird view17 in Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi (the history of ancient Chinese architecture) published in the 1980s (Liu 1984, pp. 13, 372–73). Nonetheless, a deep survey of the Plan has been lacking until now. Together with the Plan of Chongshansi and other historical materials, the aim was to clarify the ritual order existing among the temple, the Princely Palace, and Taiyuan during the early Ming Dynasty.

The Plan is noted for marking the heyday of Chongshansi after its full recovery in the Chenghua period. Although the Plan itself is undated18, by comparing buildings depicted in the Plan and the epigraphical text, an approximate period can be deduced. Two Qielan Halls 伽藍殿 on the east and west sides between the Heavenly Kings Hall 天王殿 and the Vajrapani Hall 金剛殿 are depicted in the painting, which complies with The Inscription of the Restoration of Chongshansi (1480) that “build the Qielan Halls facing each other” 增蓋伽藍神祠左右相向 (see Appendix A.2). However, the painting lacks any pavilion as mentioned in The Inscription of the Restoration of Chongshansi written by Kong Tianyin (1563) (see Ming Qing Shanxi beike ziliao xuan (xu 1) 2007, pp. 393–94), that “six pavilions are added for the bell, drum, and tablet” 增置鐘鼓碑亭六座. In this case, the Plan was established at a point between these two restorations of the temple (1472–1563). It was Prince Zhuang who carried out this restoration. He was also renowned for his good artistic taste due to a large number of collections of rare editions (Clunas 2013).

Given the tradition that Chinese paintings often tend to represent architecture in an abstract and formulaic manner, it is necessary to examine at first if the carefully painted Plan is a faithful depiction of the actual temple. The precision of the Plan can be determined from a comparison between the existing early Ming Great Compassion Hall (Zhou and Wen 2021) and its portrait in the Plan (Figure 5). Fronted by a pair of iron lions, the Great Compassion Hall is depicted as a double-eave seven-bay hall crowned with a gable-and-hip roof and enclosed by thick walls with three frontal openings, which is exactly what it looks like today. Because all other buildings in the Plan are painted as hip-roofed structures for a better painterly effect, the Great Compassion Hall is considered to be represented faithfully in the Plan, along with other buildings of the temple. Therefore, we can safely rely on the Plan to carry out a restoration of Chongshansi to the cityscape.

One notable feature of the temple shown in the Plan is its central axis. Unlike ordinary urban monasteries in China whose southern gates align with the central axis directly open to the city street, the southern gate of Chongshansi was merely symbolic. The axial route was terminated in the south by Pailiang Gate 排梁門 and its screen wall 照壁, while the route turned either to the east or to the west side gate that was the actual opening to the outside. The transition of the axis from north–south to east–west reveals the temple’s relation to the expansion of the ancient town of Taiyuan and the location of the Princely Palace of Jin.

During the hasty construction of the principalities during the early Ming Dynasty, the city of Taiyuan changed substantially. The location and the spatial layout of Chongshansi are intricately connected to the construction of the city and the Princely Palace. In April of the third year of Hongwu (1370), Emperor Hongwu granted his sons titles and land. The third son, Zhu Gang, the Prince of Jin in Taiyuan, started to construct his palace there in July. Among the elderly princes, the second son, Zhu Shuang 朱樉, inherited the former administrative office of Shaanxi Province as the Princely Palace of Qin 秦王宮, while the fourth son, Zhu Di, renovated the former palace from Yuan Dynasty as the Princely Palace of Yan 燕王宮. Only the Princely Palace of Jin was newly built.19 Since the old Taiyuan city was too small to assume its role as a crucial strategic position to the north of the empire, the construction of the Princely Palace of Jin was combined with the task of the expansion of the city. In February of the fourth year of Hongwu (1371), Cao Xing 曹興, the chief princely officer of Jin Principality, proposed to Emperor Hongwu the construction of a new city and palace.20 The construction of the city started in the eighth year of Hongwu (1375) and generally finished in the following year. During the construction, the original city was extended on three sides toward the east, south, and north. The perimeter of the city wall was enlarged to 24 li with eight gates21. The Princely Palace of Jin, occupying vast land in the east of the city, was almost completed at the same time. Similar to the construction of other principalities, the expanded Taiyuan and the Princely Palace enjoyed a huge scale and luxurious decorations, which aroused the deep concern of some far-sighted officers22. The design of the new city, characterized by the centrality of the huge palace, generated an entirely new ritual spatial system in the eastern region. This new urban ritual center, separating itself from the Song Dynasty administrative zone, marketing zone, education zone, public zone, and other functional areas, extended its central axis to the southern city gate Cheng’en 承恩門 to form a new ritual axis of the New South Gate Street 新南門街 (Zang 1983; Ma et al. 2013, pp. 32–33) (Figure 6).

It is the east–west axis before the Pailiang Gate depicted in the Plan that led Chongshansi to the New South Gate Street. Ming princes were obliged to represent the emperor’s authority in the regions assigned to them and pray for the empire and their principalities via Buddhist rituals (Luo 2013). In the existing documents, descriptions are lacking for how the Princes of Jin performed rituals in Chongshansi. However, the Great Shuilu Assembly 水陸法會 held by Emperor Hongwu in the capital Nanjing may provide a reliable reference. This ceremony is usually held after war to redeem lost souls from hell by chanting sutras and making offerings. From the first year to the fifth year of the Hongwu period (1368–1372), Emperor Hongwu convoked several great ceremonies in Jiangshansi in Nanjing. Among them, the one held in January of the fifth year was of the biggest scale and the highest rank. The details of the ceremony were documented by Song Lian 宋濂 in Jiangshan Guangjian Fohui Ji 蔣山寺廣薦佛會記: “the emperor came to the Fengtian Front Hall 奉天前殿, the main audience hall of the imperial palace, accompanied by the officers. Here, the prayer, written and stamped by the emperor, was sealed and given to the Chief Officer Tao Kai 陶凯 from the Ministry of Rites. Tao walked out of the palace through the central Wu Gate 午門 and took the prayer into the dragon carriage, via which it was sent to the Jiangshansi with guards and an orchestra. It was greeted by the monks of the Great Buddha’s Hall.” (see Du 2013; He 2013, pp. 354–56). In the early Hongwu period, Taiyuan was a place full of military conflicts and bloody battles where Prince Gong himself led the army to fight with the Mongol troops. It was reasonable for him to hold such great ceremonies there, as Emperor Hongwu did in Jiangshansi. Accordingly, we could speculate a ritual program that began with the prince’s procession from the Nanhua Gate 南華門, the south gate of this palace, toward the south, before turning east, going through the west side gate, stopping before Pailiang Gate, and then entering the temple along the central axis.

In Chengchi tu 城池圖 (map of the city) in the 1682 gazetteer of Yangqu county, the street directly connecting Chongshansi and the New South Gate Street is clearly depicted. In Jiexiang tu 街巷圖 (map of streets and lanes) of the 1843 gazetteer of Yangqu county, the temple is found facing west, intuitively revealing the west as the key position and reflecting the description of political space in the traditional Chinese map (Figure 7).

4. Chongshansi under the Urban Spatial Reproduction

As a royal temple, the close relationship between Chongshansi and the Princes of Jin could be first seen in the location of the temple. However, this physical trace is hardly evident due to the extinction of the Jin Principality, as well as the rapid urban redevelopment of Taiyuan in recent years. Chongshansi underwent a long period of decline from the supreme temple of Taiyuan to the current small-scale temple with only one main hall along its axis.

The current Chongshansi comprises three parallel courtyards. The seven-bay Great Compassion Hall is situated in the middle courtyard. It was built at the founding stage during the Ming Dynasty. The western courtyard, entirely rebuilt after 1992, is the monastic dormitory. The eastern courtyard was built even later after the reclamation of the land in 2005, containing the abbot’s living quarter 方丈, the Dharma Hall 法堂, and the canteen. Apart from the Great Compassion Hall, the remainder of the current temple has nothing to do with the Ming Dynasty Chongshansi.

To trace the Ming origin of the temple, the first step is to know its exact scale and boundaries. Fortunately, The Inscription of the Restoration of Chongshan Temple written by Prince Zhuang in 1480 is still standing in front of the Great Compassion Hall. The inscription gives a precise measurement of the temple as 344 bu 步 long from south to north and 176 bu wide from west to east. According to the Ming standard, 1 bu 步 is equal to 0.5 chi 尺, and 1 chi in terms of land measurement is approximately 32.64 cm (see Wu et al. 2005). Accordingly, the temple measures 561 m long from south to north and 287 m wide from west to east23. Compared to the current urban blocks, the Ming temple was twice the size of the existing temple from Dilianggong Street 狄梁公街 in the west to Wenmiao Lane 文廟巷 in the east. Furthermore, as the northern boundary of the temple could not go beyond Shangma Street 上馬街 constructed at the beginning of the Ming Dynasty, the southern boundary was likely located around Houjia Lane 侯家巷, very close to the southern city wall (now East Wuyi Boulevard 五一東街) (Figure 8).

The inscription also documents various important buildings in the temple during Prince Gong’s period: “the Main Buddha Hall 正佛殿 is 9-bay wide and around 7-zhang (ca. 22 m) high surrounded by marble balustrades. The roof is covered with dragon- and fish-shaped tiles. There is a 104-bay cloister circling the courtyard of the Main Buddha Hall. Behind the Main Buddha Hall is the 7-bay-wide Great Compassion Hall, whose east and west verandahs were used to worship the 18 disciples of the Buddha. The front gate house of the temple is 3-bay wide24, where the statues of the Vajrapani stand. The second gate hall is 5-bay wide, where the statues of the Four Heavenly Kings align. The temple boasts all kinds of magnificent religious buildings, including the Scripture Library 经阁, the Dharma Hall 法堂, the abbot’s chamber 方丈, the monks’ dormitory, the kitchen, the meditation hall 禪室, the well pavilion 井亭, and the revolving sutra cabinet 藏輪” (see Appendix A.2).

The information provided by the inscription can be used to compare with the Plan. The Plan depicts the scope of the grand temple and its various buildings. On the central axis, there are six halls marking out different parts of the plan: the Main Hall complex surrounded by a cloister in the middle, the Great Compassion Hall complex in the north, 16 small-scale courtyards in the east and the west, the affiliated courtyards such as warehouses in the south, and several gardens of different sizes. On the basis of the Plan, further physical evidence can also be traced to the in-situ investigation. All buildings in the Main Hall complex, including the Hall of Heavenly Kings, the Main Hall, the Vairocana Hall 毘盧殿, the Eastern and Western Tuan Halls 东西團殿, and the cloister in the painting were found lifted upon a base much higher than the ground. The leveling difference can be detected in Wenmiao to the south, separated from the temple only by an alley. Wenmiao, built in 1882, was constructed on the leftovers of the Main Hall complex of the temple burnt down by a devastating fire in 1864. The current foundation level of Chongsheng Shrine 崇聖祠 to the north of the temple is 2.6 m higher than that of the alley in front of Chongshansi, while the ground level of Lingxing Gate 欞星門 of the temple is also higher than the forefront plaza. Moreover, the two octagonal pavilions in front of Lingxing Gate match the two well pavilions behind Vajrapani Hall described in the Plan. Although the pavilions were partially renovated, the form of the bracket sets and the evident incline of the pillars 柱身側腳 show typical features of official Ming style. The plot to the east side of the temple is now a residential community constructed in the 1990s, where six aligned square stones were excavated adjacent to Wenmiao Lane. The top of the stones is cut flat. The side length is 600–686 mm long and the spacing between two stones is 4.4–4.5 m. They were most likely the pillar bases of the cloister to the Main Hall. There are some stone structures included in the west wall of the community close to the Wenmiao. They may have been pillar bases and stone strips at the periphery of the foundation. The top level is 0.9 m lower than the ground level of the Dacheng Hall 大成殿, while it is 1.01 m higher than the pillar base of the cloister. Accordingly, they might be the remains of Tuan Hall in the east (Figure 9).

The scope of the Main Hall complex can, thus, be located according to the Plan, the inscription, and evidence found on the site. Wenmiao Lane and Dilianggong Street to the east and west are exactly the east and west paved lanes 甬路 alongside the Main Hall complex in the Plan. Vairocana Hall to the north of the Main Hall complies with the current Chongsheng Shrine, while the Heavenly Kings Hall was situated at Lingxing Gate.

In mid-Ming, the city of Taiyuan started to decay. The walls and the gate towers were damaged, and the demographics during the Wanli 萬曆 period (1573–1620) fell to one-quarter of those during the Hongwu period; after the Ming Dynasty, and only the market zone was still prosperous in Taiyuan (Wang 2004). The crucial political role of Chongshansi changed greatly due to the fall of the Jin Principality. Although the temple maintained its position as the prefectural Buddhist registry Senggang Si of Taiyuan, its cultural significance was greatly lost. During the Ming–Qing upheaval, the temple provided a meeting place for the Ming loyalties to plan rebellions25. In April of the third year of Shunzhi 順治 (1646), the Princely Palace of Jin was burnt down. It was expropriated as a troop camp in the 10th year of Yongzheng 雍正 (1732)26. By that time, the ritual order of the temple no longer existed. The decline of the temple is clearly seen in the Qing Dynasty literary works. After a visit around 1727, the poet Wei Yuanshu depicted the temple as “with empty corridors and rotten wall paintings, the wind roars like ghosts without fear”27. In the 35th year of Qianlong 乾隆 (1770), Dilianggong’s Shrine 狄梁公祠 was moved to the empty plot to the west of the temple28, which was the origin of the name of Dilianggong Street. In other words, at that time, many of the courtyards in the west of the temple had been abandoned. In the third year of Tongzhi 同治 (1864), the Main Hall complex was destroyed in a fire, and the temple was converted into the educational institution of Chongxiu Academy 崇修書院 the following year.29 In 1881, Wenmiao was rebuilt on the ruined site of the Main Hall complex.30 At that time, only the Great Compassion Hall survived but was isolated from the surrounding urban environment.

The southeastern corner in the ancient town of Taiyuan also changed substantially after the Qing Dynasty. The land of the temple was gradually encroached upon. In the 13th year of Guangxu 光緒 (1887), the new Manchurian City 新滿城 was erected there. Its west wall extended to the east boundary of the temple (Zhu and Han 2006). The area to the west of the temple gradually became an education district starting from the setup of Shanxi Academy. Many schools found themselves a place in the area between Wenmiao and the New South Gate Street (Taiyuan Shi Jiaoyu Weiyuanhui 1990, p. 14; Jia 2015, pp. 96–111).

The street connecting the New South Gate Street and the temple no longer works in contemporary Taiyuan city. However, there is an L-shaped street called Xinsi Lane 新寺巷 between Shangguan Lane 上官巷 and Houjia Lane 侯家巷. According to the gazetteer of Taiyuan prefecture (1783), the local people at that time preferred to call the temple “the new temple” 新寺31. The lane, therefore, was named after the temple (Hao 1956, p. 75). As early as 1919, Xinsi Lane can be seen in the Shanxi shengcheng xiangtu (detailed map of Shanxi capital city). To the east is the vast land occupied by Shanxi Academy. The academy bought over 200 acres (ca. 1.3 km²) of empty land around Hou Family Lane and moved out some residents to build the new campus. The school moved in by the fall of 1904 (Wang 2006, pp. 150–52). Before the founding of the academy, large sums of land in the south of the temple had been abandoned for a long time. With the expansion of the academy, the street connecting the temple directly to the New South Gate Street was interrupted. By that time, the ritual order that the temple helped to forge in the city came to a stop (Figure 10).

5. Conclusions

It is indicated that the founding of Chongshansi was deeply connected to the nexus of power in controlling the local government by the central government of the Ming Dynasty. On the one hand, the temple was founded by the Prince of Jin governing Shanxi assigned by the emperor. On the other, under the national Buddhist consolidation, Chongshansi worked from the very beginning as the central Buddhist institution in Taiyuan. Chongshansi enjoyed glory upon its erection under the patronage of Prince Gong of Jin, as early as the Hongwu period. Prince Gong was regarded as a reliable guard of the imperial boundary by his father, while the Jin Principality owned a powerful military force and had a strong political impact. The erection of Chongshansi was an opportunity for Prince Gong to implement the emperor’s will by governing the state in his region and to show loyalty to the emperor in Nanjing, while it was also a showcase of royal power to his political rivals in constructing a grand building. In considering this, it is implied that the memorial to Queen Ma should be regarded as one of the functions of Chongshansi rather than the founding reason, let alone its core function. Therefore, the founding of Chongshansi as an institution was earlier than the death of Queen Ma in the 15th year of Hongwu, which also helps to rethink several theories upon the founding time of Chongshansi.

On the other hand, the location of Chongshansi reveals an intimate rapport between the Princely Palace of Jin and the Taiyuan city in the Ming Dynasty. Although the historical documents reveal a former temple at the site of Chongshansi, it was its proper position to the palace that made it the Buddhist registry for the new Dynasty. Prince Gong recovered the strength of the city of Taiyuan ever since its fall after the Song Dynasty. The new city wall included the temple originally located in the outskirts of the inner city, while the newly built Princely Palace of Jin resumed the ritual order of Taiyuan. The central axis of the palace extended to the south into the city, forming the ritual route of the city directed toward the south gate. From the Plan of Chongshansi, we can see the north–south ritual axis transferred into an east–west one. By directly connecting to the ritual axis of the city, Chongshansi played a significant role in the ruling system of power.

The collapse of the Ming Dynasty led to the extinction of the palace in the city and the falling apart of the ritual space. Chongshansi became distant from the traditional urban area after the Song Dynasty. Furthermore, it was also marginalized in the new power system and was gradually encroached upon. After the fire during the late Qing Dynasty, most of the temple was reduced to rubble, hindering future renovation. Eventually, it was replaced by the emerging city functions and even lost its connections to the city’s main road during the ongoing urban development.

The city of Taiyuan is continuing to embrace renovation and redevelopment. In November 2021, on the site of the former South Gate demolished in 1950, a newly built city gate rose at the cost of removing Wuyi Square 五一廣場, taking with it the collective memory lasting over half a century for the citizens. Its name is not Cheng’en Gate 承恩門 (accepting royal awards) but Shouyi Gate 首義門 (the first place of revolution in Taiyuan) in memory of the modern revolution. Under the impact of this renovated ritual order, the urban regeneration in the southeastern corner of the ancient city is continuously pushing forward. Shangma Street to the north of the temple was widened in 2019, the diminishing cultural relics on the city map are being rebuilt, and Xinsi Lane already has its sign. Chongshansi is facing another round of a construction power system; how it will be manifested in the new system depends upon how its historical value is interpreted.