From a critical perspective, although valid, this book provides a one-sided argument in the support of K'ang-Hsi. Although some leaders may seem perfect, it is impossible to suggest that any one leader is faultless. Thus, Jonathan Spence misses an important issue regarding the reign of K'ang-Hsi, as he is portrayed as a benevolent ruler. However, as Spence has written this in a first-person perspective, it is unlikely that K'ang-Hsi would see himself in a negative manner, thus contextualising the reason for K'ang-Hsi being portrayed in a positive demeanour.
K'ang-Hsi is famous for granting China with long lasting stability, that which no other emperor had the influence to do. The term, "High Qing" provides evidence of the Qing dynasty, as it explains the immense development of the country that expanded the population and brought about the acceptance of migrants of Asian ethnicity, which, in turn, expanded the area of the country(Rowe, 2010)
K'ang-Hsi was a strong advocate for hunting. He killed dozens of animals a day, which allowed him to train for battle, and proved how skilled he was at hunting. It could be argued that he killed animals unnecessarily, as there was likely no need to kill as many animals as he did, especially since he was hunting as an exercise rather than to provide for anybody. Most of the hunts K'ang-Hsi did were for fun, as the joy and the adrenaline rush of capturing and murdering the animals made him feel successful and well trained(Spence, 2013). Although in the modern world, this is seen as inhumane and portrays K'ang-Hsi as a cold-blooded individual. Wang Chih, a close friend of K'ang-Hsi, did request to retire due to injuries from hunting but K'ang-Hsi portrayed indifference to his request and simply sent a doctor to tend to his wounds(Ibid., 11). This shows that K'ang-Hsi had such a strong desire to hunt and to kill animals that he made light of his friend's injuries and instead demonstrated his priority of hunting. It is conceivable that K'ang-Hsi acted this way due to his Manchu heritage; during the Qing dynasty, it was standard practice for ethnic Manchurians to enjoy hunting and militancy and this does justify his reasons for behaving this way(Holcombe, 2017). Although, this does not explain his reasoning for prioritising hunting by dominating over his friend's desire to stop.
K'ang-Hsi was a fair emperor who always gave his enemies a chance to surrender before executing them. He was famous for his rightful ways of pardoning those that went against him if they yielded to him. This is supported by his act of viewing lists of those sentenced to death to avoid any unjust punishment(Spence, 2013). Thus, resulting in his popularity with the public, for example, “the officials and people all came out to welcome us”(Spence, 1999). Although, it could be argued that as this quote is from K'ang-Hsi's point of view, it is unreliable; despite there being no evidence to suggest that K'ang-Hsi was not a benevolent ruler, evidence proving otherwise may have been destroyed, just as the book does state that those against him perished. It could be possible that any evidence against K'ang-Hsi was wrecked along with the people that stood against him. In addition, although Spence claims K'ang-Hsi to be a generous leader for providing his enemies with an opportunity to surrender before murdering them, those who did not surrender were murdered immediately(Spence, 2013). This somewhat conflicts against the benign view of K'ang-Hsi as there is no way to prove if the captives were simply hiding out of fear and were attacked defencelessly.
On the other hand, women and children found during invasions were excused from punishment, although sympathetically, this may be because K'ang-Hsi anticipated people to view him as a favourable king as he sought to expand his empire(Ibid., 32). This contrasts to how many men were treated, as they were usually penalized without trial, so there was no evidence to prove their guilt or to know if they were condemned lawfully(Ibid). In addition, it could be argued that K'ang-Hsi was merciful to the women to keep them as entertainment for his loyal soldiers, but as there is no evidence to show abuse or imprisonment, this is difficult to assume as there are no sources from the civilians side. Despite K'ang-Hsi looking through lists of murderers, he gave shortened sentences to those with 'reasonable' excuses, for example, arguments whilst intoxicated which led to death were acknowledged as justifiable crimes(Ibid., 32-33). This seems hypocritical, as K'ang-Hsi pardoned someone simply because he was under the influence, and provides evidence to his biased perspective vis-à-vis portraying his unjust attitude as a ruler.
In K'ang-Hsi's defence, there is nothing he could do if the perpetrators refrained from yielding to him. If he had released a criminal, this could have affected his long-term position by causing disputes between his advisors or said criminals could have come back to overthrow his reign. Thus, encouraging the rebels to surrender or demise assisted in his long reign. In addition, as K'ang-Hsi ignored his advisor's recommendations to exile criminals, this shows he was a just emperor that believed that death was the only solution for someone who terrorised the people he cared so dearly for.
Nonetheless, K'ang-Hsi did behead those who betrayed him within a day of obtaining evidence as he believed a day was long enough in relation to the treason committed(Ibid., 31). This is an unrealistic timescale considering the time it takes to usually find evidence and proves that these criminals may have been innocent and wrongly accused or simply had an opposing ideology to K'ang-Hsi, which resulted in their death. Hu Chien-Ching's, the sub-director of the court of sacrificial worship, is an example of someone who suffered the consequence of being murdered without trial. Due to his family terrorising others, K'ang-Hsi sentenced Hu Chien-Ching to death despite his advisors suggesting his exile. This shows that, although K'ang-Hsi was proven to be all loving of his citizens, he too went against the law by dominating over governmental decisions for the murder of Hu Chien-Ching(Ibid., 29-30).
K'ang-Hsi was a humble emperor that tried his best to take care of the people, to keep the country peaceful and to promote the five key relationships of Confucianism. Although one of the key analects of Confucianism was the relationship between a ruler and those he ruled, this was not the case with his eunuchs. K'ang-Hsi made sure eunuchs stayed poor, regardless of their happiness as he was distrustful of them(Ibid., 46). This shows that although K'ang-Hsi was a virtuous ruler, he too compromised his own beliefs due to the unreliability of his staff.
Unsure about what the world would come to after his death, K'ang-Hsi struggled to cope under the pressure that was placed upon him. It is clear that he was diligent in providing for the people, through learning the history of the country, to set an example as an emperor, it can be seen that he did pitifully endure a great deal of labour on his own. This is shown from when he first began his rule at the age of eight, as he was forced into his position and proven through his letters portraying his depression regarding many of the issues that he had to deal with single-handedly. The reason for this was that K'ang-Hsi did enjoy the work he set upon himself. Although it could be argued that he was arrogant, as he stated, ”they know only a fraction of what I know”, it is likely that he did this to remain optimistic and confidence due to the position he himself was in(Ibid., 75). In addition, although he had the opportunity to gain support from his many underlings, he rejected this due to his own fear of possible mistakes made from others which would reflect badly on him. Thus, leading to him carrying the burden himself, resulting in his long reign and contextualising why he chose to work so diligently(Ibid, 145-146). It could be argued that K'ang-Hsi's reasoning for bearing the workload was due to his Manchu heritage; as this set him apart. It is debatable that he worked earnestly to show that although he was not of Chinese heritage, he was loyal to the Chinese as their emperor and tried his best to apply their values to his own. this is shown through how he shows no favouritism between the Chinese and Manchurians in regards to praise and criticism.
Appointing an heir to the throne was one of K'ang-Hsi's most troublesome tasks. This is as making a choice between his many children proved to be much more difficult than he had expected. K'ang-Hsi has to consider the beliefs of his children, many of whom contrasted his own views. This can be seen in the several attempts to appoint Yinzhi crown prince, which later failed due to his corrupt attitude(Hsieh, 1966). Although K'ang-Hsi did later appoint his eleventh son, Yin-Chen crown prince. In fact, K'ang-Hsi had more than fifty children, although many passed away in childbirth. It did appear as if K'ang-Hsi had no remorse as he continued to conceive babies and named them by the order in which they arrived, for example, first son or second child, regardless of the children that had died. The fact that so many children were conceived shows K'ang-Hsi's attempts to increase his bloodline, this was as child fatality was common and K'ang-Hsi desired to increase his chances of conceiving a future emperor. It could be argued that K'ang-Hsi was a deceitful as he stated that those emperors who idled and played with women, were considered dishonourable when he, in fact, had multiple consorts as well as of hundred women in waiting.