Why didn't the eunuch faction improve stability in Imperial China?

score:8

Accepted answer

There was no such thing as "the eunuch faction".

Generally, individual eunuchs could gain power only by virtue of their proximity to the emperor. They may form alliances or support each other against external threats (generally from the gentry), but their power was personal and specific to their own relationship with the sovereign.

This leads to two major consequences:

  1. Eunuch power was merely an projection of royal power. Since their political influence depended upon imperial favor, it was structurally impossible for eunuchs to be a check or balance on the master they serve. In fact, more often than not, the eunuch's political influence merely reflects the wishes or temperament of the emperor. For example, the first eunuch to wield power, Zheng Zhong, gained his status as a reward for helping Emperor He take down the Empress Dowager's family.

  2. Eunuchs could not transmit power, nor maintain it for long. When we see extended periods of eunuchs in power, it was never one faction maintaining power, but rather a series of eunuchs attaining power - often directly at the expense of each other. There was no continuity, nor any overarching goal. For example, Gao Lishi was the first Tang eunuch to gain power, under Emperor Xuanzong. He was exiled in 760 by Suzhong's favorite, Li Fuguo. Daizong then used Cheng Yuanzhen to strip Li of power and had him assassinated in 762. By 763, Cheng himself was impeached, exiled and shortly thereafter murdered.

Thus, while individual eunuchs were significant agents in palace intrigues, they were not a unified, singular faction with concrete long term goals or aspirations. By the nature of their power, eunuchs compete for the favor of the monarch, and carry out imperial will. These are not conditions that encourage eunuchs to pursue national stability or to restrain an emperor in dereliction of his duties - it generally much easier to ingratiate yourself with a king by indulging in their vices.

That said, were eunuchs "the most destaibilising force"? Probably not. Such a reputation is at least partially because eunuchs were scapegoated by emperors and scorned by literati prejudice. As mentioned above, eunuchs were for the most part an extension of the emperor's will, or only allowed to misbehave by imperial indulgence. For example, Liu Jin was one of the most powerful Ming eunuchs, to the point he was described as an emperor; but with just a slip of paper, the Zhengde Emperor trivially had him put him to death by 3,357 cuts. The power of Wei Zhongxian was said to have rivaled the Tianqi Emperor himself, but Chongzhen Emperor diposed of him just by reading a number of charges against him. So it's hard to not place much of the responsibility for what the eunuchs did at the feet of the monarch himself.

Keep in mind that traditionally, the primary axis of imperial power struggle was between the Emperor and his prime minister / head his imperial bureucracy. Eunuchs were one of the most reliable pawns of the throne; gentry public opinion, Confucian zealots were often on the side of ministers.

It's a heavily lopsided contest, but as long as the emperor wasn't a sociopath, the moral authority of public opinion and traditional Confucian values could - and many times did - win. When that happens, it often becomes convenient for both sides to pin the blame on the people responsible for actually carrying out the emperor's wishes. Eunuchs were therefore a recurring prime target for scapegoating.

Upvote:-3

I think there is an issue in how you phrase your question (or at least how I understood it). The issue is about fundamental causes and triggering events. To define the difference between those two, let's take a simple example:

  • Fundamental causes of the Pacific War are: war of Japan in China, US oil embargo, Japan war in China, etc...
  • Triggering event is : Pearl Harbour attack See the difference?

You say:

A lot of the instability in hereditary monarchies occurred when the ruler was mentally deficient, reclusive, or otherwise unwilling or incapable of governing.

The same difference applies:

  • Fundamental causes of instability are: part of the elite unofficially does not recognize the divinity of the emperor, hence his authority. Problem in the countries. Factions. Etc...
  • Triggering events: The lack of authority of an emperor (childhood, mental health issues), war with foreign countries...

If you consider this difference, then the question is different: how did the eunuch faction decide and act, and thus did it cause stability or instability in China?

The answer to this question is, AFAIK, that eunuchs used women as a mean to influence the emperor, thus they triggered instability. They wanted to have money/power, thus they triggered instability. They were not lacked by other men (generals for example, governors...) so this triggered instability.

More post

Search Posts

Related post