Hierarchy, History, Politics, and Popularityin the Foguangsi Main Hall Roof’s Design

©1996 John C. Klopf

Tang (T’ang)1 dynasty (618 - 906) wood-framed roofs are the oldest surviving wood-framed structures in

China. Influenced by the hipped wooden roofs built in China as far back as the Shang dynasty (ca. 1700 - 1000 BCE),

and influencing roofs up to the present day, they are an important variation on traditional building techniques.2 The

main hall of the Foguangsi (Fo-kuang-ssu, or Bright Buddha Temple – figures 1-7; appendix A), built in the year 857,

exemplifies Tang dynasty wood-framed roofs. More complex than its Han dynasty (202 BCE - 220 CE) predecessors,

which were the first Chinese wood-framed roofs to be completely supported by pillars, Tang roofs are generally consid-

ered the peak of Chinese roof development.3 An important structural change during the Tang dynasty made this

possible: the dougong (tou-kung) cantilevered truss system (figures 3 and 8) became capable of supporting wider, more

overhanging eaves.4

Technology could not have been the cause of its use, however. In fact, there are many other reasons behind

the size and shape of the Foguangsi main hall roof. Of these, China’s continuous, hierarchical culture is the most

important. Chinese institutions have traditionally established legitimacy by conforming to previous cultural, political, or

architectural ideas. In the case of the Foguangsi main hall roof, builders were responding to traditional Chinese ideas

regarding roof design for important, official buildings. The political and social climate of the Tang dynasty also directly

influenced the roof’s design. That climate determined Buddhist temples – the Foguangsi in particular – were important

enough to earn a traditional Chinese roof. The fact that the imperial government and the populace both supported

Buddhism during the Tang dynasty precipitated the roof’s design. The temple was constructed for a religion imported

from India. Therefore, Indian Buddhism had some influence over the main hall. Judging from the sinicization of

Buddhism and its architecture by the Tang dynasty, however, Indian Buddhism only indirectly influenced its design. The

following discussion explores each of these influences over the Foguangsi main hall roof’s design, ranging from the most

to the least influential.

Hierarchy and History

China’s perennial consciousness of its past, the desire to emulate it, and the hierarchical nature of that history,

are all reflected in Chinese architecture, including the Foguangsi main hall’s roof. As architectural historian Laurence Liu

puts it,

1

benevolence, hierarchy of class and seniority, the concept of ‘sky does not change, so everything doesnot change,’ natural phenomena (hills, rivers, trees), the feudalistic system grown from and adaptedto the sky, all expressed a permanence which controlled Chinese thinking, forming the seeminglyunchanged, unique Chinese architectural style.5

In fact, China’s continuous, hierarchical culture determined the Foguangsi main hall roof’s size, shape, expression, and

position in the courtyard. Chinese institutions have historically established their legitimacy by conforming to traditional

ideas, some of which are now 3000 years old. For instance, the Chinese still understand the concept of the center, which

can be traced back to Shang dynasty bronze mirrors. Also, hierarchical ideas that Western Zhou (Chou) dynasty (ca.

1100 - 700 BCE) philosophers, and also Confucius (ca. 600 BCE) promoted, are still central to Chinese culture today.

Similarly, Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty (1644 - 1911) officials still used the basic roof type that Shang dynasty Chinese built

onto their official buildings.6 The Foguangsi main hall exemplifies China’s transition from past to present. It is a

variation on Chinese precedents, both physical and symbolic, which demonstrates the continuous and hierarchical

nature of China’s traditional culture.

The Foguangsi main hall exemplifies the “seemingly unchanged” style Liu refers to. Although its construction

method is more complex than earlier Chinese methods, it resembles previous roofs in both its shape and its builder’s

intent. First, the shape of the Foguangsi main hall’s roof is derived from traditional Chinese beliefs. Liu argues that

capturing the south light and the southeast winds shows a Chinese appreciation of the “cosmic aspect of nature,” and

that balance and harmony – reflected by relatively low roofs and horizontality – not overpowering monuments, are more

typical of Chinese culture.7 He describes the meaning behind the large, curved, horizontal roof:

The slightly curved roof form, the horizontal eaves and the shadow they create, together with thehorizontal tiers of the platform, express the reposing, solemn nature of the architecture ... horizontalitywas used to express sedateness, repose and harmony. The big horizontal roof form was used torepresent sky, and the Son of Heaven. As if it envelops everybody and everything on earth, it is theaegis of all living beings.8

Second, the Foguangsi main hall roof and the Han dynasty Mingtang (Ming-T’ang, or bright hall, figures 11 and 12) roof

both demonstrate the same design intention. Thorp writes that the Han dynasty Mingtang’s roof was built to obscure

the inner areas of the hall, perhaps to create a more private or mysterious internal space.9 Architectural historian

Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt states that Tang dynasty builders, like those who built the Foguangsi main hall, also used

overhanging eaves to define different levels of privacy.10

Hierarchy in the Foguangsi is another aspect of traditional Chinese culture. It is created by combining the

Chinese concept of the center and Confucius’s five relationships. First, Chinese builders plan according to the five

2

Chinese directions when constructing buildings and compounds. The typical compass orientation of Chinese buildings

and courtyards reflects this. Of the five directions, the center is highest in the hierarchy: whoever is in the center, with

enclosed space organized around him/her, is considered most important.11 In space planning, “center” is located at the

end of the north/south axis (or the east/west axis in this case – figure 7) and under the biggest roof.12 The Foguangsi

main hall is in the “center” of the temple courtyard, under the biggest roof. Second, Confucius taught hierarchy through

relationships with other people. Two of these relationships are that the child must respect the parent and the subject

must respect the ruler. In the traditional courtyard layout, the elder’s room is at the north end of the north/south axis,

covered by the biggest roof. Children’s rooms are off-axis on the sides.13 This hierarchical organization is intended to

remind one of the subject/emperor relationship: if the courtyard house is taken as a model for a capitol city, the palace

would occupy the “central” space, leaving the commoners and officials to live off-axis on the sides.14 If it is taken as a

model for a temple, the main hall would house the cult images, while monks would inhabit the side halls.

The Foguangsi also reflects another aspect of hierarchical Chinese culture: architectural historian Nelson Wu

calls it “graduated privacy.” Wu illustrates this concept by describing the ceremony that a homeowner would go through

upon receiving a guest, emphasizing that the important concepts are that of the north/south axis (east/west in the case

of the Foguangsi) and the hierarchical organization of spaces and structures. As one travels along the axis, he/she

moves from the entrance to the courtyard, from the courtyard to the platform under the eaves, from the eaves to the

ming rooms (outer rooms, literally bright), and finally to the an rooms (inner rooms, literally dark).15 The an rooms are

the most private, and therefore the most important. As domestic architecture is almost interchangeable with Buddhist

temple architecture, parallels with temple architecture can be easily drawn: Liu describes the approach and entry into

the various spaces of the Foguangsi as an axial journey up and in, from outside into the courtyard, up three terraces,

under the eaves (where one feels “sheltered by the Buddha”), and finally into the dim main hall, where the space and

the cult images seem to blend together in the darkness.16 The main hall is the an room.

The hierarchical organization of spaces in its courtyard, its recognition of the center, the size of its roof, and its

similarity to previous Chinese roofs indicate that traditional Chinese culture primarily motivated the Foguangsi main hall

roof’s design.

3

Politics and Popularity

While traditional Chinese culture determined the shape, orientation, and position of an important, official roof,

the political and social conditions of the Tang dynasty determined that the Foguangsi main hall qualified for that type of

roof. Chinese Buddhism enjoyed imperial and popular support during the Tang dynasty. In fact, Buddhism was so

powerful that, twelve years prior to the construction of the Foguangsi main hall, the government was forced to perse-

cute Buddhists by severely limiting the number of clergy and temples allowed to remain active. This was a short

proscription period, however; the government soon returned to its more supportive stance. General imperial support

and Buddhism’s popularity precipitated the Foguangsi main hall roof’s design.

The fact that the first Tang emperors came to power in part by tolerating Buddhism, that the numbers of tax-

exempt Buddhist clergy were very high during the Tang dynasty, that members of the government were often also

Buddhist leaders, and that the government was supportive of Buddhism throughout most of the dynasty all reflect

Buddhism’s imperial support. Sui dynasty (581 - 618) emperors initiated that support immediately prior to the Tang

dynasty: they commissioned temples and collected taxes to support Buddhism.17 The first Tang dynasty emperor,

Gaozi (Kao-tsu), temporarily suspended this support when he banned both Buddhism and Daoism in June of 626. Li

Shimin, who would become Emperor Taizong (T’ai-tsung) in December of that year, convinced his father Gaozi to repeal

the order on July 7, 626. This move, according to China scholar Arthur Wright, gained him political clout, and was

partially responsible for his ascendancy in December.18 Early Tang emperors and other officials, whether Buddhist or

not, commissioned temples, or simply donated their own houses in order to provide worship spaces.19 For example,

Emperor Taizong commissioned the Hongfusi (Heng Fu-ssu — a Buddhist temple) after rising to power and attended its

opening ceremony.20 Later in the dynasty many government officials, who represented the elite and intellectual

population, were also Buddhist clergy. China scholar Peter Bol tells the story of one man who illustrates this point very

well:

Wei Ch’ü-mou [Wei Chumo] (749-801) ... was a shih [shi, a scholar] who returned to the ranks, or“resumed official garb.” He studied the Classics and histories in his youth, became a taoshi [daoshi,a Daoist priest] and then a Buddhist monk, and finally acquired civil rank by serving as a militarygovernor in 784.21

In addition to the scholar officials’ participation in Buddhist leadership, Bol also reports that the Tang government

sponsored the translation of many Buddhist texts.22

4

The imperial government benefited from its association with Buddhism. From Tang Taizong in the beginning of

the Tang dynasty to its end, and especially after the central government began to lose its power following the An Lushan

rebellion in the year 755, it gained popularity by associating itself with a popular religion, and enjoyed the stabilizing

effects major religions can have on the populace.23 In exchange, Chinese Buddhist leaders benefited from associating

their religion with China’s official institutions, such as the imperial government. Buddhist adoption of the traditional

Chinese courtyard plan, the placement of higher sloping roofs over the more important buildings, and the use of the

dougong system (which was restricted to official buildings by imperial edict)24 indicated Buddhism’s importance and

official status to potential converts. The Foguangsi main hall exemplifies this: it parallels the imperial palace main hall.

The fact that a private female citizen donated the Foguangsi main hall illustrates the popular support that

Buddhism enjoyed.25 Numerous Buddhist devotees — partly because of the reinterpretations discussed in the following

section and partly because of Buddhism’s official status — also reflect that support. During the Tang dynasty, Buddhism

reached deep into China’s countryside, rivaling the government in its power base. That independent power base put

Buddhism in a position to compete with the government for greater influence. Buddhist leaders built impressive temples

as one means of competing with the government. One source from the year 707, quoted by Jacques Gernet, points out

the extravagance equated with Buddhism during the early Tang: “today there are countless Buddhist monasteries in the

empire. The main hall of any of them is twice the size of the halls in the imperial palace.”26 Although Buddhism

benefited the government in some ways, this competition and extravagance caused the government significant eco-

nomic trouble. Gernet states that the Buddhist community and its supporters consumed an incredible amount of

resources, especially in the fifth through seventh centuries.27 With estimates of the untaxed and economically non-

productive clergy ranging from 100,000 to 700,000 from the years 842 - 845, as high as two percent of the population,

it seems that economic damage to the government, which was still reeling from the An Lushan rebellion, outweighed the

benefits.28 Bol argues that this drain on imperial wealth, partly caused by imperial support of Buddhism, left the Tang

no choice but to persecute Buddhism with what turned out to be only a temporary proscription in the year 845.29

Chinese Buddhism

Although the Tang dynasty political and social climate favored Buddhism, which was imported from India,

Indian Buddhism only indirectly influenced the Foguangsi main hall roof’s design. Chinese Buddhism had already broken

5

with Indian Buddhism in many ways by the beginning of the Tang dynasty (the year 618). Texts were modified, temple

layouts conformed to the traditional Chinese courtyard plan, and building design followed Chinese precedent. In fact,

the Foguangsi resembles a Chinese Daoist temple more than an Indian Buddhist temple. Chinese Buddhist architecture

was mostly derived from traditional Chinese ideas, particularly imperial and domestic architecture. Only a few strands

of Indian Buddhism, like Chinese interpretations of the stupa and chaitya hall, remained in the design of Tang dynasty

Buddhist temples.

By the time of the Tang dynasty, Chinese Buddhism had evolved its own identity, separate from Indian

precedent. In fact, it was the sinicization of Buddhism in the Sui dynasty that paved the way for Buddhism’s popularity

in the Tang dynasty. China scholar Stanley Weinstein argues that the Tiantai (T’ien-t’ai) school of Buddhism, which

originated during the Sui dynasty, was China’s first truly popular and fully sinicized school. This was due to textual

reinterpretation: the Tiantai founder’s discovery of the “hidden meaning” of the Lotus Sutra, a major Buddhist text,

made the religion accessible and understandable to the majority of Chinese people. Tiantai and its offshoots dominated

Chinese Buddhism into the Tang dynasty, making reinterpretation the root of Tang dynasty Buddhism.30

A similar reinterpretation was Chinese Buddhism’s adoption of traditional Chinese architecture and planning.

Chinese Buddhists conformed to traditional Chinese ideas in order to demonstrate Buddhism’s legitimacy. Architectural

historian Ho Puay-Peng’s interpretation of the engravings found in the Dunhuang (Tun-huang) caves indicates that

Chinese Buddhists used traditional Chinese architecture, not Indian architecture, to communicate their ideas to the

Chinese people.31 The engravings correlate a large, central Buddha image with that of a temple’s main hall: the hall,

complete with large roof and overhanging eaves, is located on the central axis of the engraving, behind the central

Buddha (figure 9). The pagoda’s decline in importance exemplifies this shift as well: temples originally centered around

the pagoda, which was a Chinese variation of the Indian stupa.32 By the Tang dynasty, however, Liu argues that the rise

of icon worship in Chinese Buddhism — another break with Indian precedent — resulted in temples becoming centered

around their main halls.33 The Foguangsi’s building and roof design, along with its courtyard plan (figure 7), exemplify

yet another break with Indian precedent: they were based on traditional Chinese imperial and domestic architecture.

Jeffrey Meyer argues that Chinese temples are based on linear symmetry, a traditional Chinese concept, as opposed to

the central symmetry of the Indian Buddhist temple plans.34 To further illustrate the Chinese nature of Chinese

Buddhist temples, he states that Chinese Buddhist temples were based on the same architecture as Daoist temples:

6

in its general features [Buddhist temples are] almost indistinguishable from the plan of Taoist [Daoist]temples, following the modular, axial and symmetrical plans characteristic of large private homes andthe imperial capital cities.35

In addition to planning and the exterior appearance of buildings, Steinhardt argues that Chinese temple hall

interiors also differed from Indian precedent. She states that Chinese Buddhists built rectangular interior worship

spaces into their temples because the Chinese were already familiar with that type of worship space.36 She overlooks

the influence of the Indian Chaitya halls, which probably affected the Foguangsi main hall, discussing instead two

Chinese hall types not found in India. These are the Foguangsi-style main halls called cao (ts’ao, or trough — figures 6

and 10), and another style called neitang/waitang (nei-t’ang/wai-t’ang or inner hall/outer hall). She argues that Chinese

Buddhists articulated different levels of privacy in these halls in a Chinese way: the square layout of the neitang/waitang

and cao halls creates a different type of internal, private space from Indian worship spaces.37

Buddhism came to China from India. Therefore, Indian Buddhism had some influence over the Foguangsi main

hall. It did not, however, directly influenced the Foguangsi main hall roof’s design. Although the Indian stupa and

Chaitya hall influenced the design and use of Chinese pagodas and the Chinese temple main hall, respectively, these

Indian forms were very sinicized by the Tang dynasty. By then the Chinese had adapted Buddhism to fit the architectural

ideas to which they were accustomed. In fact, Daoist temples matched Buddhist temples in plan and construction.

China’s continuous and hierarchical culture, and the Tang dynasty political and social climate more directly influenced

the Foguangsi main hall roof’s design.

Conclusion

The Foguangsi’s hierarchical organization indicates that traditional Chinese culture is mainly responsible for the

Foguangsi main hall roof’s design. The Chinese have always been conscious of their cultural continuity, and their

institutions have traditionally established legitimacy through citing and conforming to historical precedent. The ideas

reflected in the main hall’s roof are the same ideas reflected by Shang dynasty and Han dynasty roofs, while the spaces

and buildings in the temple courtyard are arranged like spaces and buildings in the traditional domestic courtyard.

These ideas date back to the beginning of China’s recorded history. The long-standing, intentional turning toward

precedent, the concept of the center, and the hierarchy inherent in Chinese thought directly influenced the Foguangsi

main hall roof’s design: they were the underlying factors behind it.

7

Political and social conditions around the year 857 also directly influenced the Foguangsi main hall roof’s

design: they are responsible for the hall’s official status and its actual construction, respectively. Buddhism’s official

status and Buddhist competition with the imperial government for popular support determined the size of the roof.

Buddhism’s official status and Buddhist leaders’ desire to convince potential converts of Buddhism’s importance — by

relating Buddhism to the emperor and the hierarchical Confucian household — determined the Foguangsi’s layout and

each building’s relative roof size. Buddhism’s popularity convinced a private citizen to donate the main hall building.

Continuity in Chinese culture, altered slightly by the introduction of the more complex dougong truss, determined the

shape and size of an important, official roof, but the political and social conditions of the Tang dynasty determined that

the Foguangsi main hall fit that category. The Tang dynasty’s political and social climate precipitated the Foguangsi

main hall roof’s design.

Indian Buddhism only indirectly influenced the Foguangsi main hall roof’s design. By the time of the Tang

dynasty, Chinese Buddhism was very sinicized. In fact, the sinicization of Buddhism and the adoption of traditional

Chinese architecture were responsible for Buddhism’s popularity during that period. Although strands of Indian Bud-

dhism remained in Tang dynasty Chinese Buddhist architecture, they were merely vestiges of an imported religion. By

the Tang dynasty, Chinese Buddhists had reinterpreted Buddhism and its worship spaces to conform to China’s tradi-

tional cultural and architectural ideas.

8

Figure 1

The main hall of the Foguangsi is the structure at rear. Note its position at the east end of the temple axis, its elevationoff the ground, and its large roof with overhanging eaves.Source: Liu, Chinese Architecture, p. 91.

Figure 2

Detail shot of the Foguangsi main hall. This photo illustrates the pounded earth platform, the dougong system, and thescale of the eaves.Source: Fairbank, figure 20.

9

Figure 3

Cross section of the Foguangsi main hall, drawn by Liang Sicheng (Liang Ssu-ch’eng). Note the zones created by thedifferent roof levels, the rows of pillars, and the overhanging eaves. for scale, a person is drawn in at the lower right.Source: Fairbank, figure 2.

Figure 4

Front elevation of the Foguangsi main hall. Note modularity, square bays, and dominance of roof and overhangingeaves.Source: Liu, Chinese Architecture, p. 92.

10

Figure 5

Plan of the Foguangsi main hall. The geometrical shapes inside the innermost rectangle are the Buddhist cult images.Note the “concentric” nature of the plan, consistent with cao or neitang/waitang organization.Source: Liu, Chinese Architecture, p. 92.

11

Figure 6

Site plan and site section of the Foguangsi complex. The main hall is denoted by numbers 8 and 9. Note the axiality ofthe plan and the vertical rise of the section.Source: Liu, Chinese Architecture, p. 90.

12

Figure 7

Diagram of the dougong system and its associated pillars and roof beams. Given that the dougong has four tiers, onecan conclude that this diagram is based on the Foguangsi main hall. Because it only has five longitudinal bays, it cannotbe a representation of it.Source: Liu, Chinese Architecture, p. 93.

Figure 8

Detail diagram of the dougong system.Source: Liang; Coaldrake, p. 84.

13

Figure 9

Illustration of a sutra taken from the east wall of cave 148 at Dunhuang, dated 771. This diagram shows the correlationbetween the central Buddha figure and the main hall, of which all we can really see is the roof. Note the axiality andhierarchy in both the Buddhist figures and the architecture.Source: Ho, “Paradise on Earth,” p. 30.

Figure 10

Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt’s diagram of the cao system. Like the Foguangsi, the pillars create “concentric” spaces.Were the eaves shown in this diagram, they would create a third delineation of space.Source: Steinhardt, “The Mizong Hall,” p. 39.

14

Figure 11

The Han Dynasty Mingtang. Note central plan and cross axis defined by four gates.Source: Thorp, “Architectural Principles in Early Imperial China,” p. 364.

15

Figure 12

Detail of the Han Dynasty Mingtang. Note the sloping roofs and overhanging eaves supported by the dougong.Source: Thorp, “The Architectural History of the Bronze Age,” p. 72

16

Appendix A — Physical Description of the Foguangsi Main Hall

The Foguangsi, China’s second oldest wood-framed structure, bears the date 857 CE, which was the eleventh

year of Tang emperor Tang Dazhong’s (T’ang Ta-chung) reign.1 Until recently, scholars thought it was the oldest wood-

framed structure still standing in China. Therefore, many have studied it. Even with the discovery of an older wood-

framed temple building, a smaller hall at Nanchansi, scholars agree that the Foguangsi main hall remains the better

extant example of a Tang dynasty wood-framed structure, as it is probably more typical.2

The building stands on Wutai Shan (Mt. Wutai) in Shanxi province, near the Tang capital Chang-an (Ch’ang-

an). It is oriented east-west as opposed to the more traditional north-south because of the fengshui (literally wind/

water, or the Chinese art of placement and orientation) of the site, and stands at the terminus of the temple courtyard’s

main axis (figure 7).3 Several scholars, including Laurence Liu, Marylin Rhie, Laurence Sickman/Alexander Soper, and

Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt describe this hall in detail.4 They report that the building is seven bays (jian or chien) wide

and four bays deep. Each of the bays is approximately square in elevation (figure 4). The middle five front bays are

doors; the roof ridge is as long as the middle three bays combined; and the front bays on each end have one window

apiece. These two end bays are also thinner than the rest, with taller columns that allow the single hipped roof to curve

up in the corners. The roof overhang measures 4.2 meters (approximately half the pillar height — the largest ratio of

overhang to column height of any surviving brackets in China), and is supported by a four-tier dougong system, the

most complex found in the Tang dynasty. The two side walls and back wall are solid brick, with no doors or windows;

the building encloses an altar with approximately thirty statues, located in the center so it can be circumambulated.

Finally, the whole hall is constructed on a raised platform of rammed earth.

17

End Notes

1NOTE: All romanization of Chinese names and terms will be in pinyin, the PRC’s official romanization system. Since many sources used it, the Wade-Giles romanization will appear in parentheses the first time a name or term is used. A Chinese character list follows the bibliography.

2Laurence G. Liu, Chinese Architecture (New York: Rizzoli) 1989, p. 32; 30-1. The dougong system was imitated in major buildings in China as late asthe Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty (1644 - 1911), even after it became obsolete due to the recession of the eaves on those buildings. Present day buildersoutside China continue to imitate the traditional Chinese roof style, especially in American “Chinatowns”. One may observe them in Boston, SanFrancisco, and Los Angeles.

3Robert Thorp, “Architectural Principles in Early Imperial China: Structural Problems and Their Solution,” Art Bulletin, v. 68, no. 3, September 1986,p. 368.

4Thorp, “Architectural Principles in Early Imperial China,” p. 368.

5Liu, Chinese Architecture, p. 24.

6Liu, Chinese Architecture, p. 30-1.

7Liu, Chinese Architecture, p. 29.

8Liu, “Chinese Architecture, Palaces and Imperial Gardens,” Architectural Design, v. 59, no. 11-12, 1989, p. xxi. Not all scholars agree. Andrew Boydargues that the traditional Chinese roof shapes are based on aesthetics. (See Andrew Boyd, Chinese Architecture and Town Planning 1500 BC - AD1911 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1962, p. 39.) Although this is a plausible proposition, it is not convincing. William Willets, who writes onthe arts of China, argues that the sloped roof is derived from pre-Tang bamboo construction methods, but does not discuss that theory in detail. SeeWilliam Willets, Chinese Art (Baltimore: Penguin Books) 1958, p. 717-23.

9Thorp, “Architectural Principles in Early Imperial China,” p. 369

10Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt, “The Mizong Hall of Qinglong Si: Space, Ritual, and Classicism in Tang Architecture,” Archives of Asian Art, v. 44, 1991p. 38.

11Nelson Ikon Wu, Chinese and Indian Architecture; the City of Man, the Mountain of God, and the Realm of the Immortals (New York: G. Braziller)1963, p. 30.

12Laurence Sickman and Alexander Soper, The Art and Architecture of China (Baltimore: Penguin Books) 1956, p. 149.

13Liu, Chinese Architecture, p. 35.

14Willets, p. 659.

15Wu, p. 32-4

16Liu, Chinese Architecture, p. 150-1.

17Stanley Weinstein, “Imperial Patronage in the formation of T’ang Buddhism,” in Arthur F. Wright and Denis Crispin Twitchett, eds., Perspectives onthe Tang (New Haven: Yale University Press) 1973, p. 279.

18Arthur F. Wright, “Tang T’ai-Tsung and Buddhism,” in in Arthur F. Wright and Denis Crispin Twitchett, eds., Perspectives on the Tang (New Haven:Yale University Press) 1973, p. 246.

19Weinstein, p. 279.

20Wright, p. 256-7 and Weinstein, p. 290.

21Peter K. Bol, This Culture of Ours: Intellectual Transitions in T’ang and Sung China (Stanford: Stanford University Press) 1992, p. 20.

22Bol, p. 20.

23Denis Crispin Twitchet, Land Tenure and the Social Order in T’ang and Sung China; an Inaugural Lecture Delivered on 28 November 1961 (London:School of Oriental and African Studies, Universtiy of London) 1962, p. 25.

24Liu, Chinese Architecture, p. 30-1.

25Wilma Fairbank, Liang and Lin: Partners in Exploring China’s Architectural Past (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press)1994, p. 95-6.

26Jacques Gernet, Buddhism in Chinese Society : an Economic History From the Fifth to the Tenth Centuries, Franciscus Verellen, trans. (New York:Columbia University Press) 1995, p. 19-20.

27Gernet, p. xv.

28Figures from Gernet, p. 7 and Peter K. Bol, p. 22.

29Bol, p. 22.

30Weinstein, p. 284-6; 289

31Ho Puay-Peng, “Paradise on Earth: Architectural Depiction in Pure Land Illustrations of High Tang Caves at Dunhuang,” Oriental Art, v. 41, Autumn1995, p. 29.

32Dell Upton, lecture at UC Berkeley on October 8, 1996.

18

33Liu, Chinese Architecture, p. 55.

34Jeffrey Meyer, “Chinese Buddhist Monastic Temples as Cosmograms,” in Emily Lyle, ed., Sacred Architecture in the traditions of India, China, Judaismand Islam (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press) 1992, p. 73-6.

35Meyer, p. 71.

36Steinhardt, “The Mizong Hall,” p. 44.

37Steinhardt, “The Mizong Hall,” p. 38.

38Fairbank, p. 95-6 Although not generally given credit for her discovery, Lin Weiyin, a female Chinese architect, found the date engraved both on theceiling rafters and on a stone tablet in front of the hall.

39Sickman and Soper, p. 243. Among others, Sickman and Soper remark that many Buddhist temple structures closely resembling the main hall ofthe Foguangsi can be found in the engravings on the Dayenta (Ta Yen-ta, or Great Wild Goose Pagoda) from 700 CE and the wall paintings in theDunhuang (Tun-huang) caves, dating from the 8th c. CE on. Also, see Fu Xinian, “Survey: Chinese Traditional Architecture,” Virginia Weng, trans., inNancy S. Steinhardt, Chinese Traditional Architecture (New York: China Institute in America) 1984, p. 26. He claims that the Nanchansi andFoguangsi are the two most important of the extant four Tang dynasty wood-framed structures.

40Liu, Chinese Architecture, p. 149. Liu mentions that the mountain to the east, river to the west, and valley walls to the north and south of thetemple make entry through the west wall of this compound perfect.

41Liu, Chinese Architecture, p.91-2; Marylin Rhie, The Fo-kuang Ssu: Literary Evidence and Buddhist images (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.)

1977, p. 2-12; Sickman and Soper, p. 246-9; and Steinhardt, “The Mizong Hall,” p. 33-5.

19

Chinese Character List

Foguangsi

dougong

ming

an

Gaozi

Taizong

Hongfusi

Shi

Daoshi

An Lushan

Tiantai

cao

neitang

waitang

Tang Dazhong

Wutai Shan

Chang-an

fengshui

jian

20

Bibliography

Bol, Peter Kees. This Culture of Ours: Intellectual Transitions in T’ang and Sung China. Stanford: Stanford UniversityPress. 1992.

Boyd, Andrew. Chinese Architecture and Town Planning 1500 BC - AD 1911. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1962.

Chen, Charles. “Chinese Architectural Theory.” Architectural Review. v. 102. no. 607. July 1947. p. 19-25.

Chung, Saehyang P. “Hsing-Ch’ing Kung: Some New Findings on the Plan of Emperor Hsuan-tsung’s Private Palace.”Archives of Asian Art. v. 44. 1991. p. 51-67.

Doumato, Lamia. Chinese Architecture: a Bibliography. Monticello, Ill.: Vance Bibliographies. 1985.

Fairbank, Wilma. Liang and Lin: Partners in Exploring China’s Architectural Past. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl-vania Press. 1994.

Fu Xinian. “Survey: Chinese Traditional Architecture.” Virginia Weng, Trans. in Steinhardt, Nancy Shatzman.Chinese Traditional Architecture. New York: China Institute in America. 1984.

Gernet, Jacques. Buddhism in Chinese Society : an Economic History From the Fifth to the Tenth Centuries.Franciscus Verellen, trans. New York: Columbia University Press. 1995.

Ho, Puay-Peng. “Paradise on Earth: Architectural Depiction in Pure Land Illustrations of High Tang Caves atDunhuang”. Oriental Art. v. 41. Autumn 1995. p. 22-31.

Ho, Puay-Peng. “The Symbolism of the Central Pillars in Cave Temples in Northwest China.” in Lyle, Emily, ed.Sacred Architecture in the traditions of India, China, Judaism and Islam. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UniversityPress. 1992

Liang, Ssu-ch’eng; Coaldrake, William H. “Seminal, ‘Lucid’ View Of Chinese Architecture.” Architecture: the AIAJournal. v. 73. no. 9. September 1984. p. 83-84, 87.

Liu, Laurence G. Chinese Architecture. New York: Rizzoli. 1989.

Liu, Laurence G. “Chinese Architecture, Palaces and Imperial Gardens.” Architectural Design. v. 59. no. 11-12.1989. p. XVI-XXX.

Liu, Laurence G; Weston, Richard. “An Eastern Classic: Chinese Architecture, by Laurence G. Liu.” Architects’Journal. v. 191. no. 3. January 17, 1990. p. 82-83.

Meyer, Jeffrey. “Chinese Buddhist Monastic Temples as Cosmograms.” in Lyle, Emily, ed. Sacred Architecture in thetraditions of India, China, Judaism and Islam. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 1992.

Pachow, W. Chinese Buddhism: Aspects of Interaction and Reinterpretation. Washington, DC: University Press ofAmerica. 1980.

Rhie, Marylin M. The Fo-kuang Ssu: Literary Evidence and Buddhist images. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.)1977.

Sickman, Laurence C. S. The Art and Architecture of China. Baltimore: Penguin Books. 1956.

Steinhardt, Nancy Shatzman. “Chinese Architecture.” Orientations. v. 26. no.2. February 1995. p. 46-52.

Steinhardt, Nancy Shatzman. “The Mizong Hall of Qinglong Si: Space, Ritual, and Classicism in Tang Architecture.”Archives of Asian Art . v. 44. 1991. p. 27-50.

21

Steinhardt, Nancy Shatzman; Soper, Alexander C. “Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt, Chinese Traditional Architecture.”Artibus Asiae. v.45. no.2-3. 1984. p. 233-238.

Thorp, Robert L. “The Architectural History of the Bronze Age.” in Steinhardt, Nancy Shatzman. Chinese TraditionalArchitecture. New York: China Institute in America. 1984.

Thorp, Robert L. “Architectural Principles in Early Imperial China: Structural Problems and Their Solution”. ArtBulletin. v. 68. no. 3. September 1986. p. 360-378.

Twitchett, Denis Crispin. Land Tenure and the Social Order in T’ang and Sung China; an Inaugural Lecture Deliveredon 28 November 1961. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, Universtiy of London. 1962.

Weinstein, Stanley. “Imperial Patronage in the formation of T’ang Buddhism.” in Wright, Arthur F. and Twitchett,Denis Crispin, eds. Perspectives on the Tang. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1973.

Willets, William. Chinese Art. Baltimore: Penguin Books. 1958.

Wright, Arthur F. “Tang T’ai-Tsung and Buddhism.” in Wright, Arthur F. and Twitchett, Denis Crispin, eds. Perspec-tives on the Tang. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1973.

Wu, Nelson Ikon. Chinese and Indian Architecture; the City of Man, the Mountain of God, and the Realm of theImmortals. New York: G. Braziller. 1963.

22