![Sample our Arts journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110799/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Arts.jpg"})
Abstract
Throughout the history of imperial China (221 BC–1911 AD), eunuchs married and adopted children. Evidence of those practices is particularly abundant for the latter half of the Tang Dynasty, from the late eighth to the early tenth century, thanks to the excavation of dozens of tomb epitaphs (muzhiming) for eunuchs, their spouses and descendants. From the reign of Dezong (779–805) onward, an increasing number of eunuchs claimed descent from the great clans of Tang China, highlighted by the use of choronyms in their names and titles. Both adoptions and great-clan descent contributed to the phenomenon of “eunuch dynasties” (huanguan shijia), successive generations of eunuchs belonging to the same lineage. This paper argues that sending biological or adopted sons as eunuchs into the palace was one of the strategies that officeholding clans employed for political reproduction during the long ninth century; it shows that the values of medieval Chinese society weighted heavily on the shoulders even of emasculated men, who modeled their (after)life according to traditional male gender roles. Indeed, the continued presence of great-clan eunuchs at court and the large number of commissionerships created for them contributed to the stability of the late Tang regime.
Notes on Contributor
Michael Hoeckelmann is Junior Professor for State and Society of China at the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg. His primary area of research is the institutional history of the Tang-Song period, philosophical discourses in prose essays (lun 論), and the history of eunuchs and emasculation. His secondary focus is on models of periodization and the establishment of Tang Studies in twentieth-century China, in particular the work of Chen Yinke 陳寅恪 (1890–1969).
Notes
1 J. K. Rideout, “The Rise of the Eunuchs during the T’ang, Part One (618–705),” AM New Series 1 (1949–50): 53–72 (53).
2 Rideout, “The Rise of Eunuchs during the T’ang Dynasty, Part II,” AM New Series 3 (1952): 42–58.
3 Rideout had trained British intelligence officers at the School for Oriental and African Studies in London during WWII. Before moving to Hong Kong, he worked as a professor in Sydney for a year. The Sydney Sunday Herald believed that Rideout had continued to work for the intelligence community (see “Sydney Recluse Revealed as Secret Agent,” April 9, 1950, p. 3, accessed February 28, 2018, https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/28669760). His disappearance and death occupied Hong Kong newspapers for months, see South China Morning Post, Jan 18: p. 4; Feb 8: p. 5; Feb 21: p. 8; Feb 23: p. 4; Feb 26: p. 7; Mar 10: p. 8; May 12: pp. 1 and 14; May 16: pp. 1 & 9 (all 1950).
4 Exceptions are Marianne Louis Carlson, “The Rationale of Eunuch Power in the Government of T’ang China, 618–805” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1971) and Ming-yu Wang, “The Involvement in Recurrent Power Struggles of the Han, T’ang, and Ming Eunuchs” (Ph.D. diss., St. John’s University New York, 1974).
5 Rideout, “Part I,” 54. “Part II” extends the scope to the year 730.
6 See Liu Xu 劉昫 (888–947) et al., Jiu Tangshu 舊唐書 [hereafter: JTS] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975), 184.4754 and Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修 (1007–72) and Song Qi 宋祁 (996–1061), Xin Tangshu 新唐書 [XTS] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975), 207.5856.
7 Zhu took the throne as first emperor of the Later Liang 後梁 Dynasty in 907 and thereby ended nearly three centuries of Tang rule. See JTS 20A.775 and Sima Guang 司馬光 (1019–1086) et al., Zizhi tongjian 資治通鑑 [ZZTJ] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1956), 263.8594–95.
8 Originally set up for specific tasks, after the completion of which they were dissolved, commissioners began to execute more and more functions of government after the Rebellion of An Lushan 安祿山 (755–763).
9 See Du Wenyu 杜文玉, “Tangdai Chang’an de huanguan zhuzhai yu fenying fenbu” 唐代長安的宦官住宅與墳塋分布, Zhongguo lishi dili luncong 1997.4: 93, “Tangdai huanguan Liu Guangqi jiazu kao” 唐代宦官劉光琦家族考, Shaanxi Shifan Daxue xuebao 29.3 (2000): 31–32, and “Tangdai huanguan hunyin ji qi neibu jiegou” 唐代宦官婚姻及其內部結構, Xueshu yuekan 2000.6: 92. On joint burial, cf. Chen Jo-shui 陳弱水, Tangdai de funü wenhua yu jiating shenghuo 唐代的婦女文化與家庭生活 (Taipei: Yunchen wenhua, 2007), 283–86; T.F. Munford, “Till Death Do Us Unite: Xunzang and Joint Burial in Ancient China,” Papers on Far Eastern History 27 (1983): 1–19, and Jessey Choo, Inscribing Death: Burials, Texts, and Remembrance in Tang China, 618–907 CE (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, forthcoming).
10 See Du, “Huanguan hunyin,” 91.
11 See Wu Ji 吳及, “Lun huanguan yangzi” 論宦官養子, in Lü Zuqian 呂祖謙 (1137–1181), ed., Song wenjian 宋文鑑 (Siku quanshu), 46.479b–80b.
12 We know from late imperial times that both the penis and the testicles were removed in China, so the term “emasculation” seems more appropriate than “castration”; see Melissa Dale, “Running Away from the Palace: Chinese Eunuchs During the Qing Dynasty,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 27.1 (2017): 143.
13 There is a small but growing body of research on Tang eunuch marriages, see Takase Natsuko 高瀬奈津子, “Tōdai kangan kazoku ni okeru josei no yakuwari ni kansuru ichi shiron” 唐代宦官家族における女性の役割に関する一試論, Hōshigaku kenkyūkai kaihō 21 (2017): 164–70 and Du, “Huanguan hunyin.”
14 To these individuals one must add those that the inscriptions mention only by name but who can be identified as eunuchs. The author used Nicolas Tackett, Tang Wudai renwu zhuanji yu shehui wangluo ziliaoku 唐五代人物傳記與社會網絡資料庫 (Prosopographic and Social Network Database of the Tang and Five Dynasties, version 1.0, accessed October 15, 2018, https://history.berkeley.edu/people/nicolas-tackett) as basis, manually adding more eunuchs from other sources.
15 See JTS 184.4753–79 and XTS 207–8:5855–5902. In addition, the three chapters mention about 70 more eunuchs by name.
16 Those are: Yang Sixu 楊思勗, Gaolishi 高力士 (for both see below), Ma Cunliang 馬存亮 (799–841), and Qiu Shiliang 仇士良 (779–841). The main collections of Tang epitaphs are Wu Gang 吳鋼, ed., Quan Tangwen buyi 全唐文補遺 [QTB] (Xi’an: San Qin chubanshe, 1994–2007), Zhou Shaoliang 周紹良 and Zhao Chao 趙超, eds., Tangdai muzhi huibian 唐代墓誌彙編 [TMH] (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1992), Zhou and Zhao, eds., Tangdai muzhi huibian xuji 唐代墓誌彙編續集 [TMX] (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2001), and Mao Hanguang 毛漢光 et al., ed., Tangdai muzhiming huibian fukao 唐代墓誌銘彙編附考 (Taipei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiu suo, 1984–93).
17 Epitaphs also exist for eunuchs of the Song and Ming 明 (1368–1644); see Ho Koon-wan 何冠環, “Xiancun de san pian Songdai neichen muzhiming” 現存的三篇宋代內臣墓誌銘, Journal of Chinese Studies 52 (2011): 33–63; Chiu Ling Yeung 趙令揚 and Leung Siu Kit 梁紹傑, Mingdai huanguan beizhuan lu 明代宦官碑傳錄 (Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press, 1997).
18 A character of the oracle bone script is thought to indicate emasculation; see Jennifer W. Jay, “Another Side of Chinese Eunuch History: Castration, Marriage, Adoption, and Burial,” Canadian Journal of History/Annales canadiennes d’histoire 28 (1993): 460, and “Castration and Medical Images of Eunuchs in Traditional China,” in Yung Sik Kim and Francisca Bray, eds., Current Perspectives in the History of Science in East Asia (Seoul: Seoul National University Press, 1999), 385.
19 See Miyake Kiyoshi 宮宅潔, Chūgoku kodai keisei shi no kenkyū 中国古代刑制史の研究 (Kyoto: Kyoto University Press, 2010), 41.
20 It was only used in exceptional circumstances; see Michael Hoeckelmann, “To Rot and Not to Die: Punitive Emasculation in Early and Medieval China”, T’oung Pao 105 (2019): 1–41.
21 For an explanation of the term sibai see Rideout, “Part I,” 55 and 66n7. The term yan’er appears twice in the New Tang History’s “Biographies of Eunuchs” (“Huanzhe liezhuan” 宦者列傳), XTS 207.5858 and 5870.
22 Shaun Tougher, “In or Out? Origins of Court Eunuchs,” in Tougher, ed., Eunuchs in Antiquity and Beyond (London: The Classical Press of Wales, 2002), 144.
23 An oft-quoted iteration of this view is Zhao Yi 趙翼 (1727–1814), Nian’er shi zhaji 廿二史劄記 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1984), 20.429, although it eventually goes back to the source translated below.
24 According to XTS 207.5870 and ZZTJ 250.8111, Du was Inspection Commissioner (guanchashi 觀察使) of Fujian. Apart from that and a handful of writings in Dong Gao 董誥 (1740–1818) et al., eds., Quan Tangwen 全唐文 [QTW] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1987), 765.7951b–54a, he is unknown to history. The latter source gives his title as Inspection Commissioners of Xuanshe, concurrently President of the Censorate (Xuanshe guanchashi jian yushi dafu) 宣歙觀察使兼御史大夫. That would have made him an official of the third rank, probably attributing him greater importance than he actually possessed. Dafu 大夫 here might be an abbreviation of Du’s nominal rank (sanguan 散官); cf. Robert des Rotours, Traité des fonctionnaires et traité de l’armee. Traduits de la Nouvelle Histoire des T’ang (Chap. XLVI–L) (Leiden: Brill, 1947), 35–36. According to JTS 171.4452 and XTS 177.5285, Du served in the Censorate, but as an Investigating Censor (jiancha yushi 監察御史) of the eighth rank.
25 Anonymous author (after 890), Yuquanzi 玉泉子 (Shanghai: Zhonghua shuju, 1958), 11. Other sources echo the passage, for example XTS 207.5870, where the place of origin for most eunuchs is extended to Ling.
26 See Rideout, “Part I,” 55 and 66n5–6.
27 See Du Wenyu, “Tangdai huanguan de jiguan fenbu” 唐代宦官的籍貫分佈, Zhongguo lishi dili luncong 1998.1: 161–74 and Chen Jo-shui, “Tangdai Chang’an de huanguan shequn: te lun qi yu junren de guanxi” 唐代長安的宦官社群——特倫其與軍人的關係, Tang yanjiu 15 (2009): 171–98.
28 Ban Gu 班固 (32–92), Hanshu 漢書 [HS] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975), 93.3727. It is also the earliest instance in which the term huanguan 宦官 is used for eunuchs; an earlier reference in Sima Qian 司馬遷 (ca. 145–86 BC), Shiji 史記 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975), 58.2084 is probably an interpolation, as it refers anachronistically to eunuchs of the Han.
29 Fan Ye 范曄 (398–445), Hou Hanshu [HHS] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1973), 6.264; cf. 78.2518.
30 The tradition that Zhao Gao 趙高 (d. 207), eunuch chancellor of the Qin 秦 Dynasty (221–206 BC), had an adopted daughter seems to be of later date; see Lang Ying 郎瑛 (1487–ca. 1566), Qi xiu lei gao 七修類稿 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1959), 27.415. Michael Loewe even contests that Zhao Gao actually was a eunuch; see Loewe, “On the Terms baozi, yin gong, yin guan, huan, and shou: Was Zhao Gao a Eunuch?” T’oung Pao 91 (2005): 301–19.
31 The most notorious case is that of Cao Cao 曹操 (155–220), whose father, Cao Song 曹嵩, was the adopted son of the eunuch Cao Teng 曹騰; see Jay, “Another Side,” 469–72.
32 HHS 57.1855–56; cf. Ulrike Jugel, Politische Funktion und soziale Stellung der Eunuchen zur späten Han-Zeit (25–220 n.Chr.) (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1976), 127.
33 Changsun Wuji 長孫無忌 et al., eds., Tanglü shuyi jianjie 唐律疏議箋解 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1996), 12.941.
34 Du You 杜佑 (734–812), Tongdian 通典 [TD] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1988), 27.757.
35 Note that there is no mention of any limitations for the adoption of daughters.
36 Yang’s epitaph can be found in QTB, 1: 146a–47b. The son’s name is Yang Chengzong 楊承宗, and we have no reason to doubt that he was an agnatic relative of Sixu or even his biological son, whom he may have fathered before being emasculated. Amy McNair, in an article on figurines in Sixu’s tomb, mentions the tomb of another eunuch’s wife, Lady Song 宋氏, which dates to 745. See her “Beliefs about Sculpture: The Marble Guardsmen of the Court Eunuch Yang Sixu,” T’ang Studies 25 (2007): 164.
37 For statements from later periods see Jennifer W. Jay, “Random Jottings on Eunuchs: Ming Biji Writings as Unofficial Historiography,” Hanxue yanjiu 11.1 (1993): 269–85, and Jia Yinghua, The Last Eunuch of China: The Life of Sun Yaoting, tr. Sun Haichen (Beijing: China Intercontinental Press, 2008).
38 That eunuchs in late imperial China referred to themselves as “slaves” (nubi 奴婢) may be a late reflection of that idea. On social death in early China, see Robin D. S. Yates, “Slavery in Early China: A Socio-Cultural Approach,” Journal of East Asian Archaeology 3.1–2 (2001): 299.
39 It is possible to identify the skeletal remains of eunuchs based on their bone development if the emasculation took place in prepuberty. See Kathryn Reusch, “Raised Voices: The Archaeology of Castration,” in Larissa Tracey, ed., Castration and Culture in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2013), 29–47.
40 There is only one scholar who doubts that members of the Palace Domestic Service were invariably eunuchs: see Yan Yaozhong 嚴耀中, “Tangdai zhonghouqi neishisheng guanyuan shenfen zhiyi” 唐代中後期內侍省官員身份質疑, Shilin 2004.5: 77–81.
41 This is reminiscent of the ways in which scholars depicted themselves in late imperial China. See Martin W. Huang, Negotiating Masculinities in Late Imperial China (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2006), 56, 156, 159, and 176.
42 See McNair, “Beliefs about Sculpture.”
43 See Du, “Zhuzhai yu fenying.”
44 See He Zhong 賀忠, “Tangdai shiren Wang Jian yu huanguan Wang Shoucheng guanxi kaolun: yi Wang Jian ‘Zeng shumi’ shi wei zhongxin” 唐代詩人王建與宦官王守澄關系考論——以王建⟪贈樞密⟫詩為中心, Shenyang gongcheng xueyuan xuebao 5.4 (2009): 531–35.
45 Even Du Wenyu, who wrote a number of insightful articles on Tang eunuchs, at times finds it inconceivable that eunuchs could have descended from great clans; see Du, “Liu Guangqi jiazu kao,” 30.
46 See Chen Zhong’an 陳仲安, “Tangdai houqi de huanguan shijia” 唐代後期的宦官世家, in Zhongguo Tang shi xuehui 中國唐史學會, ed., Tang shi xuehui wenji 唐史學會文集 (Xi’an: Shaanxi Renmin, 1986), 197; Lu Yang 陸揚, “Cong beizhi ziliao kan jiu shiji Tangchao zhengzhi zhong de huanguan lingxiu: yi Liang Shouqian he Liu Honggui wei li” 從碑誌資料看9世紀唐朝政治中的宦官領袖——以梁守謙和劉弘規為例, Wenshi 2010.4: 96–98; and Du, “Huanguan jiguan,” 169–70.
47 See Michael Hoeckelmann, “Celibate but not Childless: Eunuch Military Dynasticism in Medieval China,” in Almut Höfert, Matthew M. Mesley, and Serena Tolino, eds., Ambiguous Masculinity and Power: Ruling Bishops and Eunuchs in the Pre-Modern World (London: Routledge, 2017), 111–28. In the case of eunuch clans it is appropriate to speak of political dynasties, as they controlled the emperor and court and, other than career officials, were able to perpetuate the power of their clans across generations via adoptions—eunuchs may have used the yin 蔭 or “protection” privilege, but the evidence for that is too scarce at the moment.
48 See Wang Shounan 王壽南, Tangdai huanguan quanshi zhi yanjiu 唐代宦官權势之研究 (Taipei: Zhengwu shuju, 1971), 122–34.
49 See Jennifer W. Jay, “Song Confucian Views on Eunuchs,” Chinese Culture: A Quarterly Review 35.3 (1994): 45–51.
50 See JTS 184.4757–59, XTS 207.5858–60, and QTB, 1:35b–37a and 7:59a–60b.
51 Chen, “Tangdai houqi de huanguan,” also discusses the Liu and Yang lineages; however, the focus is on their involvement in power struggles, which is not my interest here.
52 See JTS 184.4757–59 and XTS 207.5858–60. The XTS biography is slightly longer as it not only rearranges material from the JTS biography, but also incorporates material from the Unofficial Biography of Gao Lishi (Gao Lishi waizhuan 高力士外傳) by Guo Shi 郭湜 (d. 788?), see Wang Renyu 王仁裕 (880–956) and Ding Ruming 丁如明, Kaiyuan Tianbao yishi shizhong 開元天寶遺事十種 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 1985), 115–23.
53 Several authors introduce him as an eyewitness of events during Xuanzong’s reign, e.g.: Li Deyu, Jottings of Tales heard from the Lius (Ci Liu shi jiuwen 次劉氏舊聞). See Manling Luo, “Remembering Kaiyuan and Tianbao: The Construction of Mosaic Memory in Medieval Historical Miscellanies,” T’oung Pao 97 (2011): 272–79.
54 Li Zhao 李肇 (?–after 827) et al., Tang guoshi bu; Yin hua lu 唐國史補 因話錄 [TGB], new ed. (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1979), 1.16. Cf. JTS 190C.5053, where it becomes very clear that Li was dismissed from court after the event. XTS 202.5763 changes the story: in order to take vengeance for his humiliation, Gao provokes Yang guifei with some of Li’s poems, and Yang thereupon prevents Li from getting an office.
55 See TGB 1.19.
56 See Du Wenyu, “Gao Lishi jiazu ji qi yuanliu” 高力士家族及其源流, Tang yanjiu 4 (1997): 175. The text of the stele can be found in QTB 1:35b–37a.
57 See Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiu suo 陝西省考古研究所, “Tang Gao Lishi mu fajue jianbao” 唐高力士墓發掘簡報, Kaogu yu wenwu 2002.6: 21. The satellite tomb is also mentioned in XTS 207.5860.
58 See Michael Hoeckelmann, “To Rot and Not to Die,” 36–39.
59 See JTS 184.4757, XTS 207.5858, QTB 1:35b and 7:59a; Du, “Gao Lishi jiazu,” 177.
60 Feng Ang has biographies in JTS 109.3287–88 and XTS 111.4113.
61 According to JTS 109.3287, that happened in the third year (620–621) of the Wude period, but according to XTS 111.4113 in the fifth (622–623); at any rate, in those early days the dynasty still struggled to consolidate its control over large parts of the empire.
62 The character dai in Zhidai’sb name differs in the various sources, but all consist of the element 代 and the radical 玉 in varying order. The character given here is the standard variant.
63 JTS 184.4757 and XTS 207A.5858.
64 For the translation of dani budao as “great sedition and impiety,” see Anthony J. Barbieri-Low and Robin D. S. Yates, Law, State, and Society in Early Imperial China: A Study with Critical Edition and Translation of the Legal Texts from Zhangjiashan Tomb no. 247 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 187. In Wallace Johnson, The T’ang Code (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979–1997), 1:65 and 68, e’ni 惡逆 and budao are translated as “great contumacy” and “depravity.” However, there is reason to believe that the former meaning is applied in the Northern Wei; see Hoeckelmann, “To Rot and Not to Die,” 2 and 29.
65 See Rideout, “Part I,” 55 and 66n5–6.
66 Both texts contain other conspicuous sentences, though it would go too far to analyze them here. The epitaph reads 帝曰俞以汝為內侍高延福男, where di (“emperor”) apparently refers to Wu Zetian, although the text was written and inscribed under Emperor Daizong almost 60 years after Empress Wu’s death and the restoration of the Tang. The stele also contains the sentence 則天⋯⋯選內官而母之, which may indicate that the empress acted as a kind of foster or godmother for Lishi.
67 QTW 227.2298b–99b, 230.2332b–33b, 231.2341a–42a, and 233.2361b–62a; and Li Fang 李昉 (925–996) et al., eds., Wenyuan yinghua 文苑英華 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1966), 913.4807b–8b, 931.4896b–97a, and 991.5209a.
68 QTW 305.3104a–5a.
69 See TMX 664 and He Hua 賀華, “Du ‘Tang Gao Yuangui muzhi’” 讀⟪唐高元珪墓誌⟫, in Beilin jikan 碑林集刊 n.v. (1995): 87–89.
70 See QTW 230.2333 and 231.2341b.
71 Lu Yang 陸揚, Peking University, personal communication at Reed College, Portland, OR, May 17, 2018.
72 JTS 184.4759 and XTS 207.5860.
73 TMX 972–73 and 988.
74 TMX 972.
75 The epitaph states that Kecong’s great-grandfather, Hong 閎, was Lishi’s great-grandson. It does not list any ancestors between Lishi and Hong. That seems to imply that Kecong was a descendant of Lishi in the sixth generation, not the fifth.
76 TMX 988. Kefang’s epitaph awards Lishi the title of “Commander Equal in Rank with the Three Dignitaries, concurrent Commissioner for the Cultivation of Religious Merit of the Left Side (of Chang’an)” (kaifu yitong sansi jian zuojie gongdeshi 開府儀同三司兼左街功德使). (Our) Lishi indeed held the first, nominal office, but the second was not created until after his death, possibly later than 788, see XTS 48.1253, des Rotours, Traité des fonctionnaires, 389, and Stanley Weinstein, Buddhism under the T’ang (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 85.
77 Fu Xuancong 傅璇琮, Li Deyu nianpu 李德裕年譜 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2013), 152.
78 The version used here is from Fu Xuancong and Zhou Jianguo 周建國, eds., Li Deyu wenji jiaojian 李德裕文集校箋 [LDWJ] (Shijiazhuang: Hebei Jiaoyu 1999), 523–28.
79 XTS 174.5222.
80 See TMX 882–84.
81 TMX 883.
82 Nicolas Tackett, The Destruction of the Medieval Chinese Aristocracy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Asia Center, 2014), 35–36.
83 LDWJ 525 and TMX 883.
84 LDWJ 527; TMX 883 also mentions the last title, but as that of Honggui’s second son, Xingshen 行深, who was the father of the other two eunuchs of the Liu family mentioned below.
85 LDWJ 523.
86 See Tackett, Destruction, 35, and David Johnson, “The Last Years of a Great Clan: the Li Family of Chao Chün in Late T’ang and Early Sung,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 37.1 (1977): 5–102 and The Medieval Chinese Oligarchy (Boulder: Westview Press, 1977), 50–51.
87 See LDWJ 745–47.
88 LDWJ 531–34. The choronym in question is Fufeng 扶風. The following three individuals have both a tomb epitaph and stele inscription: Gao Lishi and Gao Yanfu, neither of whom has a choronym, and Liu Honggui. The following six eunuchs have stele inscriptions only: Liang Kuangren 梁匡仁 (778–848, QTB 8:178b–80a), Zhu Xiaocheng 朱孝誠 (770–820, QTW 730.7525–26), Sun Rongyi 孫榮義 (d. 806, QTW 498.5075–77), Qiu Shiliang (QTW 790.8271–74), Peng Xianzhong 彭獻忠 (766–817, QTW 644.6522–24), and Ma. Liang has the choronym Anding 安定; Sun was from Wujun 吳郡 and made Fief-Opening County Duke of Le’an 樂安縣開國公.
89 The tomb epitaph (TMX 883) gives the name as Su 愬, the stele inscription (LDWJ 523) as En 恩.
90 White Water County was located in the capital region (Guannei 關內) and designated as “remarkable” (wang 望). See Li Jifu 李吉甫 (758–814), Yuanhe junxian tuzhi 元和郡縣圖志 [YJT] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1983), 2.38, and Li Linfu 李林甫 (d. 752) et al., Tang liu dian 唐六典 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1992), 6.73. Since “remarkable” was equivalent to “vicinity of the capital” (ji 畿), Liu Su/ En must have held rank 6a1. See des Rotours, Traité des fonctionnaires, 731 and Lai Ruihe 賴瑞和, Tangdai zhongceng wenguan 唐代中層文官 (Taipei: Sanlian, 2008), 239–40.
91 See LDWJ 523. TMX 883 refers to it as Hanchuan Garrison in Liang Prefecture 梁州漢川府; it was further known as Xingyuan Garrison 興元府. Due to its strategic importance, Hanzhong/Hanchuan/Xingyuan was designated as imperial garrison (chifu 赤府, XTS 40.1034, TD 175.4576–77, and YJT 22.557–58). Assuming that this was equivalent to a superior garrison (shangfu 上府) or higher, its Commander held at least rank 4a1; cf. XTS 49A.1287–88 and des Rotours, Traité des fonctionnaires, 548–54. Jun 郡 and zhou 州 were used as designations for one and the same kind of administrative unit at different times under the Tang.
92 Rank 4a2, XTS 49A.1281; cf. Chen, “Huanguan shequn,” 179.
93 See des Rotours, Traité des fonctionnaires, 782; Edwin G. Pulleyblank, The Background of the Rebellion of An Lu-shan (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1955), 66; and David A. Graff, The Eurasian Way of War: Military Practice in Seventh-Century China and Byzantium (Abingdon: Routledge, 2016), 36–40.
94 The QTW version of the stele (711.7294b–97b) reads 宏規 due to the taboo on the name of the Qianlong 乾隆 Emperor, Hongli 弘曆, under the Qing, when Quan Tangwen was compiled. See Chen, “Tangdai houqi de huanguan,” 197.
95 See Hoeckelmann, “Celibate but not Childless,” 119–20, and Jonathan Karam Skaff, Sui-Tang China and Its Turko-Mongol Neighbors: Culture, Power, and Connections 580–800 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 224–37.
96 See LDWJ 527 and TMX 883. Apart from Xingli and Xingshen, those were Xingfang 行方 and Xingxuan 行宣 (or -xian 先); whether a fifth son, Xingyuan 行元, was a eunuch is unclear, as both inscriptions only state that, by the time of his father’s death, he had “doffed plain robes (i.e., become an official) and been conferred green ones (reached the seventh or sixth rank)” ([jiehe] cilü [解褐]賜綠), see TLD 4.118, XTS 24.527 and TD 61.1723. According to a memorial that the Palace Domestic Service submitted in 844, eunuchs donned green court robes as well. See Wang Pu 王浦 (922–982), ed., Tang huiyao 唐會要 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1955), 81.1489.
97 For Zhongli’s epitaph, see Zhao Liguang 趙力光 et al., eds., Xi’an Beilin Bowuguan xincang muzhi huibian 西安碑林博物館新藏墓誌彙編 (Beijing: Xianzhuang shuju, 2007), 858–62; for Zunli’s, QTW 747.7742–44 and TMH 2434–36.
98 See Wang, Tangdai huanguan, 129. Zhang Quanmin 張全民 is of the opinion that this claim of Pengcheng descent can only be fictive and is founded on the adoptive relationship with Xingshen, not on any biological descent. See Zhang, “Tang Hedong jianjun shi Liu Zhongli muzhi kaoshi” 唐河東監軍使劉中禮墓誌考釋, Dunhuang xue jikan 2007.2: 16. He bases his argument on Chen, “Tangdai houqi de huanguan,” 195–201. However, Chen’s analysis of three generations of Lius is much more nuanced and does not claim that their Pengcheng Liu ancestry was fictive.
99 See JTS 177:4605–6 and XTS 181:5352–53. The text of Zunli’s epitaph does not disclose his descent but has the choronym on its cover and mentions Zunli’s enfeoffment as Fief-Opening County Viscount of Pengcheng.
100 The other three were “conferred green robes” (cilü), so it is impossible to know whether they were eunuchs. There is an epitaph for at least one more Pengcheng Liu eunuch, Liu Shizhun 劉士準 (796–850), who may have belonged to the same generation as Zhongli and Zunli, because their children’s names share the same generation character (hangbei 行輩), Chong- 重; see QTB 3:226b–27a. The dedicatee of another epitaph and son of a eunuch, Liu Zhongrang 劉忠讓, was Senior Commander of Light Chariots (shang qingche duwei 上輕車都尉); see Hu Ji 胡戟 and Rong Xingjiang 榮新江, eds., Da Tang xishi bowuguan cang muzhi 大唐西市博物館藏墓誌 (Beijing: Beijing Daxue chubanshe, 2012), 808–9. For another eunuch surnamed Liu, Liu Shihuan 劉士環 (791–841, QTB 3:214a), the epitaph does not give a choronym.
101 His epitaph and that of his wife can be found in QTB, 2:34a–37a and TMX 799–801. See Du Wenyu 杜文玉, “Tangdai quanyan Yang shi jiazu kao” 唐代權閹楊氏家族考, in Han Jinke 韓金科, ed., ’98 Famensi Tang wenhua guoji xueshu taolunhui lunwenji ’98法門寺唐文化國際學術討論會論文集 (Xi’an: Shaanxi renmin chubanshe, 2000), 370–77.
102 See ZZTJ 247.7985 and 248.8009–10.
103 See JTS 184.4774 and ZZTJ 246.7946.
104 See TMX 1039–40, 1048–49, and TMH 2119–20.
105 The citation of a courtesy and/or personal name for a eunuch wife, even in her own epitaph, is very unusual. So far, the author has only discovered one other case, that of Cao Yanmei 曹延美 (823–875), who also was married to a Lord Yang 楊公 (without choronym), see QTB 8:223b–24a.
106 See TMH 2119–20.
107 See Du, “Liu Guangqi jiazu kao.”
108 There is no known epitaph for Liu Yingrun, but one for a Liu Yingli 劉渶浰 (TMX 948–49). The two must have belonged to the same clan and may even have been brothers, because not only is their generation name the same (Ying- 渶,), but so is that of their sons (Shi- 仕).
109 QTB 2:35b and TMX 800.
110 TMH 2119.
111 TMX 1048.
112 He has an epitaph in TMX 1039–40. Another eunuch, “His Lordship Yang” 楊公, appears in the epitaph of his wife, née Zuo 左氏, in TMX 1121, but both without a choronym. and show the proposed eunuch lineages of the Hongnong Yang clan.
113 Xuanlüe’s epitaph (TMX 1048–49) states that he was the son of Qinyi, but he is not listed among Qinyi’s sons in JTS 184.4774 translated below.
114 It is unclear whether that means that he was emasculated at the behest of his adoptive father, that his biological father sent him to undergo the procedure, or even that his father was emasculated together with his son.
115 JTS 184.4774; cf. XTS 208.5889.
116 See XTS 207.5875 and 208.5889.
117 JTS 184.4772.
118 763 characters minus spaces and punctuation in JTS 184.4772–74 versus 794 in XTS 207.5875–77.
119 743 in JTS 184.4774–76 versus 1335 in XTS 208.5889–92. Judged by the chapter heading, one might think that Fugong’s biography continues right through to the evaluation (zan 讚) at the end of JTS 184. However, from “After Fugong” (Fugong zhi hou 復恭之後) on p. 4776 onward, the chapter begins the buildup to the massacre of eunuchs in 903, and the previous paragraph ended with Fugong’s burial.
120 The exception is Tian Lingzi 田令孜, whose biography in XTS 208.5884–89 precedes that of Fugong and states on p. 5888 that “Lingzi, only because of Fuguang’s [sic] example, bestowed commissions to the palace guards, adopting all of them as his sons” 令孜以復光故，纔授諸衞將軍，皆養為子.
121 JTS 184.4774. Either Fuguang, Fugong, or their sons were not very fastidious in their choice of names or the editors of JTS did not pay close attention, because in 184.4775, Shouxin also appears as Fugong’s son. Both Shouxin and Shouzhong are sons of Fugong in XTS 208.5891.
122 Skaff, Turko-Mongol Neighbors, 224–37 describes this a “fictive kinship bonding.”
123 Cf. Thomas Bauer, Die Kultur der Ambiguität. Eine andere Geschichte des Islam (Berlin: Insel, 2011).