The course of history is not entirely determined by heroic figures; the actions and choices of ordinary people also influence the historical process to varying degrees. In the Three Kingdoms period, two insignificant figures even shattered two chances to alter the Han Dynasty’s fate.
Both Qin Qingtong and Miao Ze are archetypal figures in Romance of the Three Kingdoms who betrayed their masters or superiors for personal gain, actions for which the author Luo Guanzhong delivers harsh criticism.
The Girdle Edict and the Servant’s Revenge
In the late Eastern Han Dynasty, Cao Cao controlled the emperor to command the nobles. Emperor Xian, though a puppet, refused to accept his powerlessness. He recognized Liu Bei as an imperial uncle to secure external support and used the “Girdle Edict” to garner sympathy. Unfortunately, the Han Dynasty was beyond saving, and no one could rescue him. Let us first discuss the minor figure in the Girdle Edict incident: Qin Qingtong.
After Dong Cheng received the Girdle Edict, he became overly paranoid. One day, he noticed his concubine whispering with his servant Qin Qingtong and accused them of having an affair. He intended to execute them, but after pleas for mercy, he settled for giving the servant forty lashes and imprisoning him in a dark room. Qin Qingtong escaped under the cover of night. Realized that aside from trying to eliminate Dong Cheng, there was no other way to survive. Thus, Qin fled to Cao Cao and reported,
“Dong Cheng is plotting to kill you.”
Cao Cao preemptively struck, capturing and executing all the signatories of the Girdle Edict he could find, except Ma Teng and Liu Bei who had already left the capital. Ma Teng was in Xiliang, his base, Liu Bei escaped from Cao Cao’s control under the pretext of preventing Yuan Shu from advancing northward.
Luo Guanzhong’s attention to detail is truly admirable. Perhaps he also believed that Dong Cheng’s downfall was self-inflicted. How could such a confidential matter be overheard by a servant? Dong Cheng failed to understand the basic principle of catching someone in the act—he demanded a life without evidence. Even ants cling to life, let alone humans. By not having Cao Cao kill Qin Qingtong, Luo Guanzhong also served another purpose: at that time, Cao Cao’s authority was still being established, and he faced numerous opponents. If he killed the informant, no one else would come forward with secrets in the future. Thus, Qin Qingtong was spared.
The Second Betrayal: Miao Ze’s Treachery
Another minor figure named Miao Ze played a similar role. His brother-in-law, Huang Kui, also harbored deep hatred for Cao Cao. When Ma Teng from Xiliang brought troops to meet Cao Cao, Huang Kui proposed assassinating Cao Cao during the military review the next day. Returning home, Huang Kui’s concubine, Li Chunxiang, noticed his distress and informed Miao Ze,
“Vice Minister Huang returned from discussing military affairs today, filled with rage. I wonder who provoked him?”
Miao Ze replied,
“You could test him by saying, ‘Everyone speaks of Imperial Uncle Liu’s benevolence and Cao Cao’s treachery. What do you think?’ See how he responds.”
That night, Huang Kui visited Chunxiang’s room. She tested him, and in his drunken state, he revealed,
“Even a woman like you can distinguish right from wrong, let alone me! What I hate most is my desire to kill Cao Cao!”
She asked,
“How would you carry it out?”
Huang Kui said,
“I have already arranged with General Ma to kill him during tomorrow’s troop inspection outside the city.”
Chunxiang reported this to Miao Ze, who then informed Cao Cao.
Once again, Cao Cao struck first, capturing and executing Huang Kui and Ma Teng. Miao Ze told Cao Cao,
“I seek no reward, only to marry Li Chunxiang.”
Cao Cao laughed and said,
“For the sake of a woman, you betrayed your brother-in-law’s entire family. What use is there in keeping such an unrighteous man?”
He then ordered the execution of Miao Ze, Li Chunxiang, and Huang Kui’s entire family in the market square.
Rewarding Miao Ze would have encouraged betrayal. Cao Cao had 15 wives and concubines. By executing him, Cao Cao sent a clear message to his subordinates.
Cao Cao’s shifting attitude toward informants
The reason why Cao Cao spared Dong Cheng’s household slave Qin Qingtong but executed Huang Kui’s brother-in-law Miao Ze lies not in a fixed standard of “mercy” or “cruelty,” but in whether their betrayals aligned with Cao Cao’s core interests and political needs at different times.
Qin Qingtong: A “life-saving” betrayal that eliminated a core political enemy
For Cao Cao, Qin Qingtong was a “tool” that helped him defuse a political crisis. Sparing Qin not only cost nothing but also implicitly sent a message to other potential informants: “Betraying my enemies will be rewarded with survival.” This was conducive to him monitoring dissent in the future.
Miao Ze: A “self-serving” betrayal that had no long-term political value
Although Miao Ze’s confession also helped Cao Cao suppress the rebellion, his betrayal was purely self-interested and lacked any “political legitimacy” (even in Cao Cao’s eyes).
Leave a Reply