As the most important official sacrifice in Linqu and even Qingzhou, the Eastern Stronghold Temple should have been paid special attention to by local governments, but it was often unable to be preserved for various reasons. Words similar to those in “Linquxian chongxiu dongzhenmiao ji” 臨朐縣重修東鎮廟記 (Account on Rebuilding the Temple of the Eastern Stronghold in Linqu County) in 1569 are common:
Our Ming dynasty has bestowed Yishan with an appropriate title, offered sacrifices with piety, reconstructed the temples and made them magnificent in scale. However, after many years, the wooden buildings began to brake and were hard to repair. Since xinmao year of Jiajing (1531), the temple has been nearly in ruins, and the orthodox regulations were also abandoned. Because of the lack of finances, it remains only a small room for the god, which is far from fitting the regulations. 我明厘正封號,虔祀有加,廟貌崇嚴,規制大備.第時久就廢,修建維艱.入嘉靖辛卯以來,廢殆極矣,而正典亦廢.絀于財力,僅成類小室者以奉主位,大不稱制.
According to
Linquxian fuyi quanshu 臨朐縣賦役全書 (Comprehensive manual of Linqu taxes and corvée; 1657) and the
Linqu xianzhi臨朐縣志 (Chronicles of Linqu County; 1884), the financial revenue of Linqu County did not have a budget specifically used to maintain the construction of the Eastern Stronghold. One reason for the lack of efforts on the part of the Linqu government may have been that the location of the Eastern Stronghold Temple was too remote. The Eastern Stronghold Temple is located in the foothills of Yi Mountain, which is nearly a hundred
li 里 (Chinese miles) away from Linqu city. For the Linqu government, this national sacrifice temple was not only located on the outer edge of space but also on the edge of society. Negligence had become a reasonable strategy to save on the cost of governance. In fact, during the Ming Dynasty, according to “Chongxiu weisushan dongzhen xinggong ji” 重修委粟山東鎮行宮記 (Account on Rebuilding the Residence of the Eastern Stronghold on Weisu Mountain), it was precisely because the Eastern Stronghold Temple was so far away that the people of Linqu County built the Eastern Stronghold Residence on Weisu Mountain, approximately three
li northeast of the county town, around 1580, to avoid undue the hardship of a long journey (
Wang 2003, 4.145–146). As it was far away from the protection of the county government, the Eastern Stronghold Temple was often harassed by bandits who gathered in Yishan. The fear of bandits who often appeared in the Yishan area and that temples might be ransacked and destroyed also deepened the local government’s misgivings about subsidizing the Eastern Stronghold Temple.
Obviously, the maintenance of the Eastern Stronghold Temple needed to rely on other forces outside the government. In fact, the people most concerned about the appearance of the Eastern Stronghold Temple were likely the temple-guarding priests who lived there. Judging from the inscriptions of the steles in the temple, the Daoists certainly hoped that the authorities would give enough support to ensure the integrity of the temple, but when the authorities were unable to meet their requirements, it became more pragmatic to join forces with the local folk forces, including the elders and gentry. At the same time, the local people had a belief in the God of Mount Yi and were willing to participate in the maintenance of the temple as much as they could, so as to win divine protection for themselves and their community, strive for honor and “semi-official” power, and achieve the goal of strengthening community cohesion and local power.
As a result, the Eastern Stronghold Temple, where Daoist priests maintained the operations, had become a field of intertwined relationships between the central government, local governments, and Daoist and folk organizations, and the temple construction activities themselves had become a typical situation representing these complex relationships. The following examples show how Daoist priests played an important role in the construction of the Eastern Stronghold Temple.
3.1. The Construction of the Divine Protection Palace in Yuan Dynasty
According to the “Account of Divine Protection Palace” of 1298, the god of Yishan was bestowed with the title of Prime-Virtue Eastern-Protector King by the central government. Those who participated in the bestowal-sacrifice are found named on an old stele in the temple, which records that “the Divine Protection Palace on the right of the temple, is the place where Daoist priests of the temple attend and worship” 廟之右神佑宮者, 乃知廟道士參禮之所也 (
Zhao and Gong 2011, p. 8). In the next year, 1299, Zhang Dexian was officially appointed to be responsible for the management of the Eastern Stronghold Temple and Divine Protection Palace. This appointment was by Zhang Zhixian 張志仙, the President Daoist (zhangjiao 掌教) in charge of National Complete Perfection Daoism (1224–ca. 1308; his term of office was 1285–1307) (
Cheng 2012, p. 29). The President Daoist in the Yuan Dynasty was privileged to offer sacrifices to mountain and water gods as the deputy of the monarch and also obtained the power to appoint the person in charge and the temple abbots (
Cheng 2012, p. 127). After his appointment, Zhang Dexian started the restoration of the Eastern Stronghold Temple and the construction of the Divine Protection Palace, but unfortunately died soon after. Then, Tang Zhiqian 唐志遷 was appointed to become his successor and eventually led the reconstruction to its completion.
According to the main content on the front of the stele, although this repairing activity got a little support from local officials, it was mainly a project conducted by Daoists in the Eastern Stronghold Temple and the Extreme Void Palace. On the back of the stele, numerous local common people’s names were engraved following the signatures of the stonemason and calligraphy writers whose names should be at the end of this stele. It suggests that the inscriptions on the stele were carved at least twice, and the local people, inspired by Daoists, actively participated in the construction of the Divine Protection Palace and the Eastern Stronghold Temple. Moreover, on the steles of “Li Mu daisi bei” 李木代祀碑 (Sacrifice Hosted by Deputy Li Mu), of 1465, “Chongxiu Dongzhenmiao jibei” 重修東鎮廟記碑 (Account of Reconstruction of the Eastern Stronghold), of 1467, and “Li Xi’an daisi bei” 李希安代祀碑 (Sacrifice Hosted by Deputy Li Xi’an), of 1470, the term “abbot of Divine Protection Palace” 神佑宮住持 was replaced by “abbot of this temple” 本廟住持 (
Zhao and Gong 2011, pp. 32, 35, 37). In light of the fact that there was no longer any mention of the Divine Protection Palace appearing in the local chronicles and stone inscriptions of Yishan and Linqu during the Ming and Qing dynasties, it could potentially be concluded, or at least speculated, that the Divine Protection Palace was abolished before the Chenghua period (1465–1487) of the Ming Dynasty.
3.2. The Constructions in 1556–1561 and 1614 of the Ming Dynasty
The bandit problem in Yishan was serious, so it became a special function of Yishan God to help the official forces in suppressing the bandits with divine power. The “Dongzhen xiuwadian ji” 東鎮修瓦殿記 (Account of Building the Brick Hall in the Eastern Stronghold), in 1159, recorded a miracle: during the Fuchang 阜昌 period (1130–1137) of the Puppet-Qi Administration, the fierce outlaw Lei Zhen 類臻 gathered his bandits in the mountain. However, after the local official Tian Shaozu 田紹祖 wrote a poem on the wall of the Eastern Stronghold Temple, the bandits were defeated by local forces (
Yao 2002, 9.179). A similar story inexplicably occurred once again during the Ming Dynasty and may have been what led to the reconstruction of the Eastern Stronghold Temple.
According to Wang Juyi’s “Dongzhen miekou ji” 東鎮滅寇記 (Record of the Destruction of Bandits in the Eastern Stronghold), Zhao Ci 趙慈 and his bandits raised a rebellion in 1552. Zhao had consulted the divination lottery in the Eastern Stronghold Temple before attacking the city of Linqu, but all three lots presaged a disastrous result and he went away angry. No further than five kilometers from the temple he encountered government forces. During the battle, the wind changed suddenly, which was beneficial for the officials, and the bandits were roundly defeated. Later, the official army interrogated the captives, who said they saw the God of the Eastern Stronghold help the official army fight and this was the reason for their defeat (
Wang 2003, 4.143;
Fu 2003, 8.57). Perhaps the revelation of God on Mount Yi inspired the local people to rebuild the Eastern Stronghold Temple to repay his grace. For this reconstruction, Wang Juyi wrote the “Chongxiu Dongzhenmiao yuan buyin” 重修東鎮廟緣簿引 (Accounts of the Reasons for the Reconstruction of the Eastern Stronghold Temple). In this record, Wang said that the Eastern Stronghold Temple at that time was falling apart, the main hall, the dormitory, the corridor, and even the steles were in a dilapidated state (
Wang 2003, 4.143–144). In fact,
Linqu biannianlu 臨朐編年錄 (
Chronicle of Linqu) mentions that a small hall had been built for the Eastern Stronghold Temple seven years before (1549) by Wang Jiashi 王家士, the Magistrate of Linqu County (
Zhang 2003, 6.197). Wang Jiashi’s
Jiajing Linquxian zhi嘉靖臨朐縣誌 (
Linqu County Gazetteer, complied in the Jiajing period) also recorded his repair activities, saying that the Eastern Stronghold Temple was “decadent for a long time” 歲久傾頹, “but since giant wood is rare to find, and the sacrificial ceremony of the Stronghold Temple is different from other constructions, to renovate the temple has to wait for cooperative completion with neighboring counties in a harvest year” 但巨木難得.鎮廟祀典非他興作可擬,煥然鼎新,固有待於豐年鄰邑共成之力也 (
Wang 2002, 2.13). It is clear that the Eastern Stronghold Temple was dilapidated, yet the local government was unable to maintain it, and this was a difficult problem that had existed for a long time. Wang Juyi attributed the crippling of the Eastern Stronghold Temple to the inaction of the government: “Likely those above were conservative in accordance with the rules, and thus those below abandoned their duties” 盖上既狃于因循,斯下遂成夫玩愒. “Although the grains in sacrificial utensils are pure in spring and autumn, the building no longer appears magnificent and glorious” 粢盛雖潔於春秋,壯麗難憑乎輪奐 (
Wang 2003, 4.143–144). Obviously, Wang Juyi was criticizing the official use of the Eastern Stronghold Temple as an occasional place of sacrifice but did not care about the operation and renovation of the Temple. Disappointment with the local government made Wang Juyi and other local gentry who felt concerned about the temple turn to common people for help:
To accumulate little by little, we must ask for help from neighboring towns; to cut the long to amend the short, we have to rely on people of all directions. Therefore, we wholeheartedly pray for mutual assistance. No matter you are rich or poor, please contribute according to your own possessions; no matter wise or foolish, please help according to your own heart. 但積少成多,必旁求乎列邑;而絕長補短,須仰賴於十方.為此,竭誠專祈共濟.或貧或富,量所有以相周;無智無愚,隨其心而協助.
As recorded in the
Kangxi Linquxian zhi 康熙臨朐縣誌 (
Linqu County Gazeteer, complied in the Kangxi Period), the reconstruction of the Eastern Stronghold Temple in 1676 received a variety of sponsorship from the “righteous people” of Linqu County (
Yin 2002, 4.87). The reconstruction began soon after Zhao Ci and his bandits were defeated by the local government. In any event, since the local government was still under pressure in terms of finances to maintain stability, it might have been unwilling to pay a high price to organize the engineering activity. However, the prevarication of the Linqu County government gave an opportunity for folk groups to enter the Eastern Stronghold Temple in an organized and large-scale manner. It is easy to understand that when the government was absent in its temple-managing responsibility, it transferred its privilege to the public. However, this reconstruction might not have been a substantial one because of the financial restrictions and the temporal proximity of the bandit disasters. Since the reconstruction happened only one year later, the local societies that had experienced outlaws attack also needed time to heal their wounds.
In 1558, the thirty-seventh year of the Jiajing period, the Daoist priest of the Eastern Stronghold Temple played the leading role in the year’s restoration. The “Chongxiu Dongzhenmiao timing ji” 重修東鎮廟題名記 (Record of the Names Signed on the Stele of Rebuilding the Eastern Stronghold Temple), which was established in 1561, indicates the fact of the event:
In recent years, the buildings in the Eastern Stronghold have been devastated by wind and rain, and the gods’ statues exposed to air. The Daoist abbot of this temple, Tang Jiaoyu, and other related Daoists once presented the situation to the county government, and the local government also informed the Military Defense Circuit Office, who issued the order to allow Daoists to raise donated money and food from people of all directions. And the two county governments of Linqu and Yishui served as supervisors and dispatched laborers to rebuild the residence hall of five columns using glazed tiles with forged beasts, two porticos of ten columns, and one Lingxing Gate. The reconstruction began in the thirty-seventh year and was completed in the fortieth year of Jiangjing Period. 東鎮廟宇,近年以來,風雨摧殘,神像暴露,本廟住持唐教玉等,具呈到縣,轉申本府兵備道給印信,□□緣募四方錢糧.臨朐沂水二縣城,夫役督工,修理寢殿五楹,具用琉璃瓦獸,兩廡十楹,靈星門一座.自嘉靖三十七年起工,至四十年落成.
The local governments, including Linqu County, Yishui County, and even the Qingzhou Superior Prefecture, seemed to encourage and support the restoration of Daoist Tang Jiaoyu. However, in addition to allowing the fund-raising behavior of Tang Jiaoyu, the local government mainly exercised the obligation of “supervision,” and those who authentically put their energy in the restoration were the group of Daoists, such as “Daoist Chen Chongjin, fund-raising abbot Tang Jiaoyu, Donators Du Jiaoyong, Huan Yilin, Wang Jiaohong, Li Jiaoyun, Meng Daosheng, Shen Daogui” 道士陳崇進,募緣住持唐教玉,助緣杜教用,郇一林,王教洪,李教允,孟道勝,申道貴 and “abbot Cui Chongyou”住持崔崇祐. The independent fund-raising behavior of Tang Jiaoyu showed that the Daoist priests in the Eastern Stronghold no longer placed all the obligations of maintaining their temple on the local government, but the official who “issued the order” could overlay the essentially non-governmental fund-raising activities with some sense of official support, and it was helpful to win the generous support of local officials and gentry. According to the inscription on this stone, the strategy achieved the desired results, and many local officials participated, making donations in their personal capacity, while at the same time villagers in Linqu, Yishui 沂水, and Changle 昌樂 also unpacked their bags to donate.
Unfortunately, the four-year reconstruction still failed to completely solve the problems of the dilapidated Eastern Stronghold Temple. Meng Yangxing’s 孟養性 “You Yishan ji” 遊沂山記 (Account of Visiting Yishan) recorded that, in 1562, the Eastern Stronghold Temple was “small and not fit for a divine residence” 殿宇狭小, 不称神居. Regarding this situation, the Daoist priest in the temple explained: “according to the regulation, this temple should be a high-level building with big and wide space, and of construction almost equal to the temple of the sacred peak Taishan, but it has been dilapidated for a long time. Although the site is preserved, huge woods are hard to come by, and the labors needed are so large that it would be hardly restored without provincial level cooperation” 庙制高阔,原见视泰岳,岁久圮废.遗址虽存,巨木难觅,工役之大,非通省协力莫能复也 (
Wang 2003, 4.144). In any case, the reconstruction activities from 1558 to 1561 still reveal important information about the Eastern Stronghold Temple. Firstly, from an institutional view, the temple guardian Daoists had no obligation to make excessive efforts for the maintenance of the Eastern Stronghold Temple and it was to be the officials’ duty to repair the national sacrifice temples. In reality, though, the government was often uninterested and incapable of properly dealing with the temples, so the Daoist priests who lived in them had to bear some of the responsibilities. While assuming responsibility, these guardian Daoist priests also reasonably gained the power to operate the Eastern Stronghold Temple with flexibility, as can be seen in their control over holding ritual offerings 醮 in the temple, which will be further discussed later. Secondly, the completeness or decay of the temple directly affected the living situation of the Daoist priests in the temple, but they did not have sufficient funds to maintain such a huge temple, so it was inevitable to strive for the sponsorship of the government and non-governmental forces. When there was no official support, the cooperation between temple guardians and folk forces became particularly important in maintaining the temple. At the same time, the folk forces—represented by the gentry and rural elders—also obtained an opportunity to enter the Eastern Stronghold Temple and made a far-reaching impact on the temple. It must be admitted: the reconstruction activities led by Tang Jiaoyu revealed that none of the officials, Daoists, or folk forces could provide proper protection for the Eastern Stronghold Temple for long, and for this reason the normal operation of the temple was barely maintained after the middle of the Ming Dynasty. The cooperation and prevarication among the three parties in the renovation effort and the change of actual control contributed to the uncertain identity of the Temple. For the purposes of different groups, the Eastern Stronghold Temple was not only a national temple to enjoy the institutional sacrifice of the court but also a legitimate Daoist abbey and a folk temple of local beliefs.
Since the reconstruction project at the end of the Jiajing period (1522–1566) of the Ming Dynasty, it had become regular practice for the government, Daoists, and folk elites to cooperatively repair the Eastern Stronghold Temple. Here, we can take the reconstruction record in 1614 as a case study. According to the “Chongxiu Dongzhen Yishanmiao ji” 重修東鎮沂山廟記 (Account of Rebuilding the Yishan Temple of the Eastern Stronghold) by Zhao Bingzhong 趙秉忠, the Eastern Stronghold Temple had once again fallen into a state of disrepair for an extended period of time (
Zhang 2009, pp. 186–87;
Zhao and Gong 2011, p. 87). In 1611, Ma Youchun 麻友椿 served as the governor of Linqu County, and when he offered sacrifice to the Eastern Stronghold Temple in autumn of that year, he found the temple dilapidated and hoped to repair it, but he was unable to support the production by himself and the county office alone. Later, under the petition of the local Confucian scholar Chen Zhigong 陳致恭, the elder aristocrat Wang Laipin 王來聘 and some other local gentry, the Linqu government and the local forces launched the fund-raising and reconstruction work together. Due to a fortunate acquisition of giant woods for construction, the main hall was rebuilt within three months, and then the dormitory, bell, and drum towers, and other buildings were also restored. The reconstruction of the Eastern Stronghold Temple from this time is most obviously seen from the signatures on the back of the stele, which acknowledge the successful tripartite cooperation of local officials, Daoists, and folk forces. On the back of the stele, there are several clear categories on the donor list including the names of local aristocrats, Confucian scholars, officials, local elders, craftsmen, three temple abbots, and 33 ordinary Daoists.
3.3. The Constructions in 1663 and 1701 of the Qing Dynasty
When the Qing Dynasty replaced the Ming Dynasty, the temples of sacred peaks, strongholds, seas, and waterways were made into a symbol of the Qing Empire’s ruling legitimacy and orthodoxy and their sacrificial rituals were paid attention to by the new government. As far as the Eastern Stronghold is concerned, from the description of “Li Rui daisi Dongzhen Yishan bei” 李蕊代祀東鎮沂山碑 (Stele of Sacrifice to Mount Yi the Eastern Stronghold Hosted by Deputy Li Rui), we can see that by the third year of Shunzhi 順治 (1646) at the latest, the Qing court began to send envoys to worship Yishan at the Eastern Stronghold (
Zhang 2009, p. 429). However, the first large-scale renovation of the Eastern Stronghold Temple during the Qing Dynasty did not begin until the second year of Kangxi (1662), and the temple-guarding Daoist priests once again played important roles in the project.
There are two original accounts of reconstruction activities in that very year, both written by Zhang Yinli 張印立, a Presented Scholar of Linqu County, namely, “Chongxiu Dongzhen Yishanmiao ji” 重修東鎮沂山廟記 (Account on the Reconstruction of Mount Yi the Eastern Stronghold Temple) and “Chongxiu Dongzhenmiao luocheng ji” 重修東鎮廟落成記 (Account on the Completion of the Eastern Stronghold Temple). The “Account on Reconstruction” might have been written before the reconstruction project in 1662. It was emphasized in the stele that “the duty of the local government is to govern the people and sacrifice to the gods” 治民事神,司土之责. That autumn, when the county magistrate Xie Cimu 謝賜牧 offered sacrifice to the Eastern Stronghold, the main hall of the temple began to leak and was drenched in rain, so the magistrate summoned the Daoist Zhu Quanzhou 朱全用to propose a plan to rebuild it. At this time, they found that not only the main hall but also the dormitory hall and two affiliated halls needed to be repaired, and the Dragon Pavilion and Pavilion for Killing Sacrificial Victims had both been ruined as well (
Yin 2002, 4.95). “Account on the Completion”, written after the reconstruction, also mentioned the wish of Xie Cimu to renovate the temple in the autumn of 1662. The following spring (1663), Xie Cimu sacrificed in the Eastern Stronghold Temple to pray for rain to alleviate the drought. As soon as he finished the ritual, it began to rain. On this occasion, Xie Cimu formally proposed the reconstruction plan and took the lead in donating one-hundred-and-thirty gold coins, while other officials and the local elder gentry also responded positively to the call for donations. The reconstruction was proposed in the ninth month of 1662 and ended in the tenth month of 1663. According to the inscription, more than 50,000 tiles were added to the old temple, 70,000
jin (Approx. 4178 kg) of mud were used, and more than 1000 roof rafters were replaced. Finally, the temple became as clean as the Confucius Temple. The Dragon Pavilion and the Pavilion for Killing Sacrificial Victims were also renewed. The statue of the Sea God (haishen 海神) was restored and now solemnly stands in the hall with neat clothes and holding a ritual scepter (
Zhao and Gong 2011, p. 92).
The following records describe in detail the efforts made by the Daoist priests in the temple to rebuild the Eastern Stronghold Temple and at the same time show the complex relations between these Daoist priests. According to Zhang Yinli, a Daoist priest surnamed Cao 曹 in the Eastern Stronghold Temple hired people to dig outside the temple gate and found thousands of kilograms of lime. Cao in vain tried to keep this a secret, but eventually the news leaked to everyone, yet none of the Daoists dared to be the first to reveal it. As a result, in the third month of 1663, the constructing supervisor ordered to dig the lime out, even though Cao denied it. Cao was probably Cao Zhenwei 曹真惟, whose name appeared in the Daoist signatures of “Chongxiu Dongzhen Yishan miao ji” 重修東鎮沂山廟記 (Record of Rebuilding the Temple of Yishan the Eastern Stronghold) in 1614. In Zhang Yinli’s record, there was another episode: in Niujiagou 牛家溝 village, Linqu County, a villager called Niu Si 牛四 had a big poplar tree in his own cotton yard. Daoist priests advised him several times to donate the tree for the reconstruction of the Eastern Stronghold Temple but Niu refused. Soon thereafter, Niu became seriously ill and his family donated the big poplar tree, but Niu did not recover in the end. From the above records, the temple-guarding Daoists raised funds through local folks to support the reconstruction projects.
Thirty-eight years later, the Eastern Stronghold Temple was renovated again. According to “Chongxiu Dongzhen miao beiji” 重修東鎮廟碑記 (Stele Record of Rebuilding the Eastern Stronghold Temple), written by Chen Tingwan 陳霆萬 in 1701, the Temple was in a dilapidated condition once again. In 1697, Zhang Zengyu 張曾裕, the county magistrate of Linqu, planned to repair the temple and “summoned Daoists to raise money” 召黃冠為疏以募資 (
Zhao and Gong 2011, p. 101). However, Zhang left office soon after in order to observe the mourning rites for his deceased mother. His successor Chen Tingwan, was the one who completed the project. According to Chen Tingwan, the essential works can largely be attributed to the director Daoist Wang Zhengwei 王正位. According to this stele, Wang was the abbot of the Eastern Stronghold Temple at this time. In 1702, there was another building activity in the Eastern Stronghold Temple. According to the “Chongxin Dongzhen shenxiang ji” 重新東鎮神像記 (Record of Remaking the Statue of the Eastern Stronghold God) by Chen Weiyin陳維寅, the local Education Supervisor, when the idol figure in the temple was found to be defective, someone proposed to use the wooden name tablet to replace it. However, most of local people had a negative view of this plan because they believed that only a new statue could arouse the piety of ordinary people. So, under the leadership of two elder aristocrats, Zong Kai 宗炌 and Zhang Jie 張捷 of the local folk association, the idol statue was rebuilt (
Zhao and Gong 2011, pp. 103–4). By the end of the record, the signatures show that, in addition to the local community, those who participated in the construction of the statue also included Xu Hefeng 徐和風, Liu Wuxiang 劉無祥, and other Daoist priests. A passage in this inscription provides us with a clue for local forces to enter the temple. It reads:
The god of Mount Yi presided in the East, the sons of Heaven (the emperors) always send officials to offer sacrifices, and the relevant governmental institutes greet him every Spring and Autumn. No matter whether there are floods, droughts, or epidemics, the god always answer prayers’ requirements. Thus, the temple is crowded with those who come here for incense-praying and ritual offering from near and far. 況沂山之神□鎮東方,天子遣官致祭,有司春秋告祀,水旱□疫,有禱必應,遠近進香設醮者,絡繹而至.
Regarding how the Eastern Stronghold Temple was to be used, not only did the government have a set of etiquette regulations for offering sacrifices but the folk groups, also, always kept their own rituals with regular belief practices, including incense-praying and ritual offerings. Some materials show that spring and autumn temple fairs appeared in Mount Yi during the Qing Dynasty or even earlier (
Pan 1998, p. 19). While according to the remaining steles of “Renshouxiang Panyangshe xiujiao canbei” 仁壽鄉盤羊社修醮碑 (Fragmentary Stele of Offering Ritual by Panyang Community in Renshou Township) (
Zhao and Gong 2011, p. 132), “Quqiu Bolizhuang beiji” 渠丘泊里莊碑記 (Stele Record of Quqiu Boli hamlet) (
Zhao and Gong 2011, p. 96;
Zhang 2009, pp. 205–7), and
Notes of The Eastern Stronghold (
Zhang 2009, p. 205), during the Kangxi reign, at the latest, the folk people were led by Daoist priests to set up festival offerings within the Eastern Stronghold Temple.
According to integrated studies on the constructions of the Eastern Stronghold Temple in generations (beyond the above cases), it is known that the central courts always showed some enthusiasm for the reconstruction and maintenance of the Eastern Stronghold Temple at the beginning of the establishment of the Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties. This was probably because the Eastern Stronghold, as one of the sacrificial sites, symbolized the ruling legitimacy of the new dynasty. The measures to revitalize the Eastern Stronghold Temple were directly involved in the public performance promoting the destiny of the new dynasty. However, with the downward movement of the dynasty, official maintenance of the Eastern Stronghold Temple became less and less adequate, as can be noticed most prominently in the Ming and Qing dynasties. Although there were objective reasons for the neglect of the Eastern Stronghold Temple by the authorities (whether central or local), a deeper cyclical reason might be that when dynastic rule stabilized, the court would naturally pay less attention to the beliefs about the legitimacy of its governance. At the same time, the Daoist priests in the Eastern Stronghold Temple encountered the awkward situation of neither getting full support from the authorities nor easily being able to give up such a large-scale temple. Finally, they were forced to bear the responsibility for the daily operation of the temple to a large extent on their own. In order to maintain the Eastern Stronghold Temple and to maintain their own livelihood, the Eastern Stronghold Daoist priests sought more resources and cooperation from local society. As a result, the Daoists in the Temple gradually lost their “official identity” but transformed into the representatives of “local society”.
When official power diluted in the management and control of the Temple, Daoists obtained and expanded the operational authority of the Eastern Stronghold Temple by constantly participating in and presiding over the construction of it. From then on, the temple was not only a place for the spring and autumn sacrifices of the imperial court, and a place for local officials to ask for rain, it also became a general worshiping space for Daoism and folk shrines. It seems that there was a game of “rights and obligations” between the imperial officials and the “folk forces” represented by Daoist priests guarding the temple and giving up obligations was tantamount to the transfer of rights. As a result, the Eastern Stronghold Temple had the dual function of being both a place of official sacrifice and a Daoist–folk temple where the official etiquette in the temple went hand in hand with Daoist–folk rituals, although the two kinds of ceremonial activities did not occur simultaneously.