Individual Autonomy and Responsibility in Late Imperial China By ...

胡廣 (1369–1418), taking Zhu’s old age into account, suggested that he should be punished by burning his writings. Angered, Yongle accused Zhu Jiyou of being deceitful for daring to slander the ancient sages and undermine orthodoxy. Yongle then ordered Zhu to be sent back to his hometown and caned; Zhu’s writings were also burnt as a warning for later generations and prevention of the spread of heterodox theories.⁵ Zhu Jiyou’s crime was considered very serious. His writings were alleged dangerous for Confucian orthodoxy,⁶ and his dissenting opinions deemed “false and misleading” (huoshi wumin 惑世誣民).⁷ As also confirmed by one of the main thinkers of the Donglin Academy, Gao Panlong 高攀龍 (1562–1626), such harsh treatment was a clear signal that “heterodoxy had to be stopped and silenced” (xieshuo bingxi 邪說屏息).⁸ In this sense, Yongle’s cultural policy continued his father’s style and left an indelible mark in Chinese society: it established what was to be deemed right and wrong in the interpretation of Classics, the official truth and the obligatory curriculum for a political career. Nevertheless, as Huang Zuo 黄佐 (1490–1566) witnesses in his Records of the Hanlin Academy (Hanlin Ji 翰林記), its effects were not long-lasting.⁹

The beginning of a new critical trend is confirmed by Gu Yanwu 顧炎武 (1613–1682), who maintains that the authority of the School of Principle was challenged by the search for novelties, fresh ideas, and new interpretations.¹⁰ Yet even during Gu’s time, orthodox scholars, confusing harmony with the kind of ideological conformism attained through central control, again applauded centrally led initiatives aimed at “clarifying orthodoxy and suppressing heterodoxy” (zhengxue ming er yiduan xi 正學明而異端息), and, in order to return to the right path (quxie guizheng 去邪歸正), they could not help but openly condemn dissent to the extent of using the severe measures previously adopted by Yongle.¹¹ Here we find one of the roots of Chinese ideological intolerance, whose main argument was that the very act of “confusing people’s minds” legitimated the arrest and beating of dissidents, as well as the burning of deviant writings, for these were among the duties of those in power.