The conflict between Wu Chengxiu (representing “merchants” and the wealthy class) and the censor’s younger brother (representing “officials” and power networks) in Strange Tales from Liaozhai: Tian Qilang may seem to stem from a servant’s misconduct, but it actually tears away the cruel veil of “struggles between officials and merchants” in feudal society.
This conflict not only reveals the overwhelming dominance of power over wealth but also exposes the deep-seated flaws in the traditional social power structure. Its underlying logic and insights still warrant reflection today.
Reality: Absolute Suppression of Wealth by Power and Systemic Violence
The struggle between Wu Chengxiu and the censor’s younger brother was never an equal contest from start to finish. The former relied on wealth, while the latter wielded power as a shield. Every step of the conflict demonstrated the “officials’” dimensionality reduction strike against “merchants,” with cruelty manifesting in three aspects:
Total Trampling of Rules by Power:
The conflict originated from the servant Lin’er’s (Lin Er) evil deeds (molesting his master’s daughter-in-law and fleeing to avoid arrest), which should have been a clear matter of right and wrong. However, the censor’s younger brother, relying on his elder brother’s official influence, openly shielded the culprit—knowing Lin’er (Lin Er) was in the wrong yet refusing to hand him over, even conniving at his slander against the Wu family. When Wu Chengxiu tried to defend his rights through “legal channels” (reporting to the authorities), the county magistrate, fearing the censor’s power, outright abandoned judicial justice: he not only failed to hold Lin’er accountable but also escorted him back to the censor’s residence; later, he even became a tool of the censor’s younger brother, arresting Wu’s uncle and nephew on false charges of murder, eventually having Wu Chengxiu’s uncle beaten to death in prison. Here, the law no longer served as a criterion for “resolving disputes” but became a weapon for power to suppress dissidents. The collapse of rules rendered the merchant’s “reason” completely ineffective.
Vulnerability of Wealth in the Face of Power:
As a wealthy man, Wu Chengxiu possessed considerable wealth (able to repeatedly bestow gifts on Tian Qilang and mobilize resources to search for people), yet such wealth had no defensive capacity in the face of power. He could use money to bribe relations but could not buy off the county magistrate’s fear of the censor; he could prove his innocence but could not withstand the censor’s younger brother’s false accusations. More cruelly, power could not only seize his wealth but also destroy his reputation (through Lin’er’s slander), trample on his relatives (his uncle’s tragic death), and even threaten the survival of his family. This reveals the underlying logic of feudal society: without institutional protection, wealth is ultimately nothing but meat on the chopping block of power.
Asymmetry and Destructiveness of the Struggle:
The censor’s younger brother’s retaliation was never a “reciprocal revenge” but a “systematic destruction” using public power. He was not content with shielding Lin’er(Lin Er); instead, he actively fabricated unjust charges, escalating personal grievances into a political persecution of the Wu family—by falsely accusing them of murder, he mobilized official forces to suppress the Wu family, essentially using “state violence” to resolve personal conflicts. This asymmetry made Wu Chengxiu’s resistance futile: the more he struggled (such as protesting in front of the censor’s mansion), the more he intensified the opponent’s violence, eventually falling into a dead end where “seeking justice only invites disaster.”
Logic: Monopoly of Power and Institutional Corruption
The conflict between Wu Chengxiu and the censor’s younger brother is essentially an inevitable outcome of the “power monopoly” logic in the feudal bureaucratic system. This logic consists of three interlocking layers that sustain the absolute suppression of merchants by officials:
Hierarchical Suppression Under “Official-Centrism”:
Traditional society divided classes into “scholars, farmers, artisans, and merchants,” where merchants, despite their wealth, occupied the bottom of the social pyramid. In contrast, “officials” (especially ranked censors) belonged to the “scholar” class, the “legitimate” holders of power and morality. This hierarchical order inherently endowed officials with the power to “look down on” merchants. When the censor’s younger brother shielded Lin Er and framed Wu Chengxiu, he probably never regarded Wu as an “equal opponent” but merely as a “wealthy man who could be manipulated.” In his eyes, the wealth and dignity of merchants should naturally give way to the authority of officials, and this hierarchical prejudice lent “hidden legitimacy” to the abuse of power.
“Protective Umbrella Effect” of Power Networks:
The censor’s younger brother’s arrogance did not stem solely from personal ability but relied on a power network woven by “superior-subordinate relations” and “colleague interests.” The reason the county magistrate “dared not offend” was that the censor was his superior or a potential decision-maker for his promotion; although the censor himself did not appear directly, his official position itself was his brother’s “get-out-of-jail-free card.” This network of “officials protecting each other” amplified the power of individual officials into “systemic violence,” and what merchants faced was never just a “wicked young man” but the entire corrupt bureaucratic machine.
Instrumental Logic of “Law Serves Power”:
The essence of feudal law was to “maintain ruling order” rather than “protect individual rights.” When law conflicted with power, law inevitably yielded to power. When the censor’s younger brother framed the Wu family for murder, the county magistrate, knowing the evidence was insufficient, still “extorted confessions through torture”—essentially alienating the law into a “hatchet man of power.” For merchants, this meant the complete absence of “procedural justice”: they could neither rely on officials to enforce the law impartially nor obtain redress through appeals (since higher officials belonged to the same network as the censor), ultimately falling into a desperate situation where “crying out to heaven and earth yields no response.”
Insights: Eternal Questions About Power Restraint and Social Justice
Although the story of Tian Qilang is fictional, it offers profound insights into “official-merchant relations” and “social justice” that remain relevant across eras:
Power Must Be Confined to Institutional Cages:
The censor’s younger brother’s wanton behavior is rooted in the lack of effective restraint on power. When officials can override the law by virtue of their status, and “officials protecting each other” becomes an unspoken rule, both merchants and common people are exposed to the risk of being harmed. This reminds us that a healthy society must establish systems of “power checks and balances” and “judicial independence,” making law a “public contract” transcending power rather than a tool of a certain class.
The Balance Between Wealth and Power Requires Rule Protection: Wu Chengxiu’s tragedy proves that without the protection of rules, wealth will ultimately become prey to power; and when power loses its boundaries, it will also overdraw social trust due to “unrestrained plunder.” In modern society, the healthy form of “official-merchant relations” should be “power does not overstep its bounds, and capital does not transgress rules”—the government protects legitimate wealth through systems, and capital creates value through the market, with both interacting positively within the framework of rules rather than undermining each other.
The Tragedy of “Chivalry” and the Necessity of Institutions:
Tian Qilang’s revenge, though satisfying for the moment, is ultimately a helpless act of “meeting violence with violence.” His sacrifice precisely reflects that when institutions fail, individual “chivalry” can only be a tragic supplement, not a long-term solution. This reminds us that rather than pinning hopes on “heroes saving the world,” we should strive to build a just society “that does not need heroes”—where everyone’s rights are protected by systems, and every injustice can be redressed through normal channels. This is the best tribute to “people like Tian Qilang.”
In conclusion, the official-merchant struggle in Tian Qilang is far more than a simple “personal grudge”; it is a mirror reflecting the power dynamics of feudal society. With its cruel narrative, it warns us that the indulgence of power and the absence of institutions will expose every individual to the risk of “the law of the jungle”; and the pursuit of justice must always be vigilant against the arrogance of power and safeguard the dignity of rules.
Leave a Reply