Two years after Giordano Bruno burnt in Rome. A heretic in Chinese history cut his throat in a Beijing jail, in 1602. He had been arrested on the charge of “daring to advocate a disordered Way, deluding the age, deceiving the people.” 敢倡亂道，惑世誣民. His name was Li Zhi 李贽 (1527–1602, courtesy name Zhuowu 卓吾). Even the recommended sentence of his “crime” was merely deportation to his home county under surveillance, he chose to end his life in the capital. Today, his tomb still stands in a park in Tongzhou, on Beijing’s eastern edge.
For four hundred years, whenever Chinese have sought a native precedent for breaking with orthodoxy, they have reached for him. Heretics appear every generation. The question I find more interesting is how he became the icon.
A Book to Burn
Li Zhi grew up in Quanzhou (a major commercial hub on the Maritime Silk Road) as a conventional chinese scholar 读书人. Six generations back, an ancestor had sailed the trade route to Hormuz, converted to Islam and married a local woman. By the time Li Zhi was born the business was long gone. But the family background might influence him unconsciously, leaving him far less tuned to the traditional four-class hierarchy (士农工商 scholars, farmers, artisans, and merchants) than a standard agrarian family.
No one is born a heretic. Li Zhi followed convention and studied the classics for the keju (科举, civil service examinations). He then spent twenty-five years as an unremarkable, mid-ranking Ming official. Elite culture was dominated by Daoxue (道學, "the Learning of the Way")—the Neo-Confucian orthodoxy synthesized by the Cheng–Zhu school during the Song dynasty. As the foundation of the state examination curriculum, it immersed every educated man in identical texts, commentaries, and values. Its core premise held that moral perfection is attained gradually through canonical texts under orthodox masters.
The rigid system had already been challenged. Wang Yangming (王陽明, 1472–1529) relocated the moral principle to the mind itself, formulating the doctrine of innate knowing (liangzhi, 良知). The innate knowing was not exlusive to the scholar. it was fully present in everyone, even a common farmer. When Li Zhi encountered these currents in the 1560s through public lecture assemblies, they were being pushed to radical conclusions by the Taizhou school, which famously proclaimed that "the streets are full of sages" (满街皆圣人). The idea tried to dissolve the hierachy and monoply of knowledge of Confucianism from inside. That people tired of elite talking about virture but doing the opposite.
Li Zhi quitted from office at fifty-four. Traditionally, retired officials returned to their ancestral homes to serve family and clan interests. Li Zhi refused. At sixty-two, he took Buddhist vows and shaved his head. It was a radical gesture of renunciation, since hair was considered a sacred inheritance from one’s parents (身体发肤，受之父母). In 1590, at sixty-four, he published a collection of his correspondence titled A Book to Burn (焚書).
In the preface, he explained both the contents and the title: “What I have written cuts close to the mortal spot of today’s scholars. Since it strikes their chronic disease, they are bound to want me dead, and so I want it burned” (所言頗切近世學者膏肓，既中其痼疾，則必欲殺我矣，故欲焚之).
His direct target was orthodox moralism, whose practitioners he dismissed as jia daoxue (假道學)—phony moralists. While Wang Yangming sought to reform Confucianism from within, Li Zhi systematically dismantled it.
Dismantling the Doctrines
Li Zhi did not establish a rival theoretical system; instead, he posed the foundational questions no one dared ask and answered them with blunt clarity.
His most celebrated philosophical contribution is “On the Child-Mind” (童心說). In its opening passage, he wrote that the child-mind is entirely authentic and untainted, “the original mind of the very first thought” (夫童心者，絕假純真，最初一念之本心也). The child-mind possesses no predetermined doctrine. Once external dogmas enter through the senses and take control, that original authenticity is destroyed (蓋方其始也，有聞見從耳目而入，而以為主於其內而童心失). The more rigid doctrines one accumulates, the farther one drifts from genuine truth—a direct inversion of the Cheng–Zhu tenet that canonical study leads to moral clarity.
He warned that second-hand knowledge derived from canonical commentaries smothers original insight. He argued that the Six Classics, the Analects, and the Mencius were largely eulogies composed by court historians or fragmentary notes kept by muddled disciples who recorded partial recollections without context.
He also questioned the unquestioned authority of Confucius himself: everyone revered Confucius as the supreme sage, but on what empirical grounds? Early scholars asserted it, teachers and parents repeated it, and children memorized it long before they could evaluate it critically. “Ten thousand mouths, one wording, irrefutable; a thousand years, one pitch, and no one aware of it” (萬口一詞，不可破也；千年一律，不自知也).
Similarly, he attacked the orthodox mandate to “Preserve Heavenly Principle and Eliminate Human Desire” (存天理，灭人欲). Li Zhi maintained that basic material needs are the moral principle: “Wearing clothes and eating food—that is human relations and the order of things. Strip away food and clothing, and no human relations remain” (穿衣吃飯，即是人倫物理；除卻穿衣吃飯，無倫物矣).
In an era when women were barred from intellectual life, Li Zhi took a radical stance: “You may say that people come as men and women. You may not say that insight does” (謂人有男女則可，謂見有男女豈可乎？). In his final decades, he openly accepted and taught female disciples.
The Heretical Years
Li Zhi later mocked his early conformity: “Before fifty I was truly a dog. The dog in front barked at a shape, and I barked along with it” (余五十以前真一犬也，因前犬吠形，亦隨而吠之).
Having forfeited his official stipend upon retirement, he survived on the hospitality of sympathetic patrons. He first stayed in Huang’an, Hubei, in the household of Geng Dingli. When Geng died in 1584, his elder brother Geng Dingxiang took over. A prominent Daoxue scholar with a large following, Geng Dingxiang clashed fiercely with Li Zhi in a written polemic that generated much of A Book to Burn.
In 1585, Li Zhi relocated to Zhifo Yuan (芝佛院), a Buddhist monastery by a lake in Macheng. He sent his wife and daughter back to Quanzhou; when his wife died there after years of pleading for his return, he did not attend her funeral. Two years later, he shaved his head while keeping his beard, continued to eat meat and drink wine, and hung a portrait of Confucius inside the Buddhist sanctuary. He also began instructing women, including a literate widow from a prominent local family. In a conservative county where moral reputation was everything, these nonconformist lectures triggered widespread outrage.
Around 1600, a hostile mob burned Zhifo Yuan to the ground and demolished the stupa Li Zhi had constructed for his own remains. At seventy-four, he fled north to Henan before settling in Tongzhou outside Beijing. In spring 1602, an imperial censor submitted a formal memorial denouncing his writings. The Wanli Emperor ordered his arrest and the confiscation and destruction of his books.
His prison interrogation was composed. When questioned, Li Zhi insisted his writings were intended to serve the sagely way rather than harm it. The court recommended deporting him back to Quanzhou under local surveillance—the single outcome he had spent two decades resisting.
Li Zhi asked for a barber. Once the barber set down the razor and stepped aside, the seventy-six-year-old picked up the blade and slit his throat. He lingered for two days. When asked why he had done it, he replied: “What does an old man of seventy-six have left to seek?” (七十老翁何所求).
Becoming the Icon
Following his death and the imperial ban on his texts, Li Zhi’s writings became the most sought-after underground literature in the Ming empire, prompting commercial printers to affix his name to unrelated manuscripts to inflate sales.
His ideas deeply influenced the late-Ming literary avant-garde. The Three Yuan Brothers of Gong’an (公安三袁) visited him for ten days in 1590, translating his concept of the “child-mind” into their own aesthetic theory of native sensibility (xingling, 性灵): “Express what is authentic to oneself; do not be bound by formal rules” (独抒性灵，不拘格套). In 1595, Yuan Hongdao wrote while serving as a fatigued magistrate: “Luckily I keep a copy of A Book to Burn by my bedside. It dispels gloom, aids digestion, and clears dimming eyes. It is remarkably effective” (幸床头有《焚书》一部，愁可以破颜，病可以健脾，昏可以醒眼，甚得力).
The Qing dynasty maintained the imperial ban on his works, yet scholar-officials continued to read them in private. The editors of the Siku Quanshu (Complete Library of the Four Treasuries) preserved his entry solely to denounce him: “His books may be destroyed, and his name is not fit to soil these pages. Yet because he deceived the age with extravagant talk and rustic scholars still revere his empty reputation... we preserve this entry to thoroughly expose his crimes” (其书可毁，其名亦不足以污简牍，特以贽大言欺世，至今乡曲陋儒，震其虚名，如置之不论恐贻害人心，故特存其目，以深曝其罪).
In 1859, Li Zhi’s influence reached Bakumatsu Japan. In Noyama Prison, the samurai reformer Yoshida Shōin (吉田松陰) transcribed A Book to Burn by hand and urged his disciple Takasugi Shinsaku to study it before Yoshida was executed that autumn. In 1907, the revolutionary scholar Liu Shipei (刘师培) published a study of Li Zhi in his Tokyo-based anarchist journal Tianyi Bao, leading to a reprint of A Book to Burn in Shanghai in 1908.
Li Zhi was subsequently reclaimed by nearly every modern anti-traditionalist movement. Prior to the May Fourth Movement, Wu Yu (吴虞) published A Supplementary Biography of Li Zhuowu (明李卓吾别传) in 1916, hailing him as an anti-Confucian pioneer—prompting Hu Shi to later dub Wu Yu the hero who single-handedly “smashed the shop of Confucius.”
In 1974, Li Zhi experienced perhaps his most surreal transformation during the Cultural Revolution’s “Criticize Lin, Criticize Confucius” (批林批孔) campaign. Driven by the theoretical project to divide all Chinese intellectual history into a binary struggle between “reactionary Confucianism” and “progressive Legalism,” party propagandists found Li’s anti-orthodox writings. Because he had mocked Confucian hypocrisy and praised historical figures like Qin Shi Huang, the iconoclast was retrofitted into an early Legalist champion. Major state publishing houses rushed out massive print runs of A Book to Burn, accompanying them with ideological commentaries, popular study pamphlets, and illustrated picture booklets.
For modern readers, however, Li Zhi’s enduring portrait remains the concluding chapter of Ray Huang’s 1587, A Year of No Significance (万历十五年). Rather than portraying him as a standard political rebel, Huang framed him as a tragic, brilliant intellectual crushed by an ossified institutional order. Since its 1982 Chinese publication, that chapter has served as the gateway through which most contemporary readers first encounter Li Zhi.
Complied daily Wenyan Decoded
Each day, I unpack a single sentence from the Chinese classics, character by character, showing how these ancient texts still shape the way Chinese culture thinks, argues, and feels today. The goal is not translation, but connection: ultimately, the aim is for readers to engage with the original text itself, rather than rely on the translation.
Day 1
夫童心者，絕假純真，最初一念之本心也。
Fú tóngxīn zhě, jué jiǎ chún zhēn, zuìchū yīniàn zhī běnxīn yě.
“The child-mind: free of all borrowing, purely true — the original mind of the very first thought.”
— 焚書·卷三·童心說 (A Book to Burn, “On the Child-Mind”) by Li Zhi (李贽, 1527–1602)
This is one of the most famous arguments from Li Zhi. The late-Ming ‘heretical’ scholar used it to critique stale doctrines and the trend of ornate but hollow writing. This argument was also a key reference point for the Chinese quest for individualism, and has been called China’s declaration of authenticity.
Unpacking the sentence:
夫 (fú) — the opener that announces a thesis; untranslatable, and modern Chinese has nothing quite like it
童心 (tóngxīn) — the child-mind, the mind before it borrowed anything. Not quite the modern 童心 in 童心未泯 (”still young at heart,” playfulness)
者 … 也 (zhě … yě) — the definition frame
絕 (jué) — utterly without
假 (jiǎ) — borrowed - Modern Chinese uses 假 to mean “fake,” which derives from borrowing something and acting as if it were your own. In Classical Chinese, it primarily means “to borrow” (as in 狐假虎威, where the fox borrows the tiger’s terror).
純真 (chúnzhēn) — unmixed and true
一念 (yīniàn) — a single thought-moment - A Buddhist loanword widely used in Chinese; the smallest unit of mental time.
本心 (běnxīn) — the original mind — Mencius’s word
Day 2
所言頗切近世學者膏肓，
Suǒ yán pō qiè jìnshì xuézhě gāohuāng,
既中其痼疾，則必欲殺我矣，
jì zhòng qí gùjí, zé bì yù shā wǒ yǐ,
故欲焚之。
gù yù fén zhī.
“What I have written cuts close to the mortal spot of today’s scholars. Since it strikes their chronic disease, they are bound to want me dead — and so I want it burned.”
— 焚書·自序 (A Book to Burn, “Author’s Preface”) by Li Zhi (李贽, 1527–1602)
In 1590, the retired official published a collection of his letters and named it A Book to Burn. The title was a forecast of the book’s destiny: he was confident that the book would be burned precisely because of its accuracy. It was banned by the Ming court in 1602 (the year Li Zhi died in prison) and banned again under the Qing dynasty, yet it kept circulating and was continuously reprinted.
Unpacking the sentence:
所 (suǒ) — “that which…”
頗 (pō) — quite, rather
切 (qiè) — to cut close to; the same 切 as in modern Chinese 切身 (cutting close to oneself / deeply personal)
膏肓 (gāohuāng) — the region between the heart and diaphragm, referring to a vital area medicine cannot reach -
From the Zuozhuan (左傳): Duke Jing of Jin dreamed of his illness as two boys hiding in the gaohuang. Still common in modern Chinese as 病入膏肓 (bìng rù gāohuāng), meaning “the disease has entered the vitals” — incurable.
中 (zhòng) — to hit the mark (used as a verb here). Modern Chinese preserves this tone and meaning in phrases like 中獎 (zhòngjiǎng, to win the lottery).
痼疾 (gùjí) — a chronic, deep-seated illness
則 (zé) — then; 既…則… forms the correlative pair “since/once X, then Y”
矣 (yǐ) — sentence-final particle - roughly the Classical Chinese equivalent of modern 了, marking a resulting state or emphatic conclusion
之 (zhī) — pronoun “it,” referring to the book
Day 3
萬口一詞，不可破也；
Wàn kǒu yī cí, bù kě pò yě;
千年一律，不自知也。
qiān nián yī lǜ, bù zì zhī yě.
“Ten thousand mouths, a single voice, it cannot be broken; a thousand years, a single tune, and no one is aware of it.”
— 續焚書·題孔子像於芝佛院 (A Book to Burn, Continued, “On an Image of Confucius at the Zhifo Monastery”) by Li Zhi (李贽, 1527–1602)
Everyone agrees that Confucius is the supreme sage, but Li Zhi challenged the premise by asking how anyone actually knows. In his view, Confucius was deemed a sage only because early scholars guessed and proclaimed it so. Subsequent fathers and teachers inherited and recited the texts, and children absorbed the doctrine before they could question anything. Li Zhi directly attacked the authority of the classics that underpinned the entire social order.
Unpacking the sentence:
詞 (cí) — wording, formula, a unified voice
破 (pò) — to refute or break - In modern Chinese, 破 typically means to physically break an object; in Classical Chinese, it frequently refers to demolishing or disproving an argument.
律 (lǜ) — a fixed musical pitch - From the idea of “a pitch to which all instruments must tune,” the term evolved to mean rules, law, and discipline (as in 法律, 紀律).
自知 (zì zhī) — to know of oneself, self-awareness - In Classical Chinese, the reflexive 自 is placed before the verb (literally “self-know”). Modern Chinese typically uses the verb-object order (知道自己), though the archaic structure survives in set phrases like 自知之明 (zìzhīzhīmíng, self-knowledge).
DAY 4
故謂人有男女則可，
Gù wèi rén yǒu nán nǚ zé kě,
謂見有男女豈可乎？
wèi jiàn yǒu nán nǚ qǐ kě hū?
“To say that people come as men and women, fine. To say that insight comes as male and female, how could that stand?”
— 焚書·卷二·答以女人學道為見短書 (A Book to Burn, “Reply to the Claim That Women Are Too Short-Sighted for the Way”) by Li Zhi (李贄, 1527–1602)
A correspondent had informed Li Zhi that women cannot study the Way because their insight is shallow. Li Zhi rebuked him furiously: yes, there are men and women, but insight is not. Li Zhi taught women, including widows, which scandalized Macheng and led to his eventual expulsion from the county. This was the exact line that 1919 May Fourth iconoclasts celebrated as early proto-feminism.
Unpacking the Sentence
謂 (wèi) — to say, to claim
見 (jiàn) — insight. — Classical Chinese frequently uses this verb as a noun—literally, “the seeing you see.” While Modern Chinese treats 見 primarily as a verb (e.g., 看見, to see), modern compounds still fossilize this noun usage: 見解 (viewpoint), 意見 (opinion), 遠見 (foresight).
則 (zé) — then, in that case
豈 (qǐ) — how could…? Opens a rhetorical question where the implied answer is a definitive “no.” Modern Mandarin retains it primarily in set phrases like 豈有此理 (”How could such a thing be reasonable!”).
乎 (hū) — classical question particle
DAY 5
人皆以孔子為大聖，吾亦以為大聖；
Rén jiē yǐ Kǒngzǐ wéi dà shèng, wú yì yǐwéi dà shèng;
皆以老佛為異端，吾亦以為異端。
jiē yǐ Lǎo Fó wéi yìduān, wú yì yǐwéi yìduān.
人人非真知大聖與異端也，
Rénrén fēi zhēn zhī dà shèng yǔ yìduān yě,
以所聞於父師之教者熟也。
yǐ suǒ wén yú fù shī zhī jiào zhě shú yě.
“Everyone takes Confucius for a great sage — I too take him for a great sage. Everyone takes Laozi and the Buddha for heretics — I too take them for heretics. But no one truly knows sage from heretic; it is only that what we heard from our fathers and teachers is familiar.”
— 續焚書·題孔子像於芝佛院 (A Book to Burn, Continued, “On an Image of Confucius at the Zhifo Monastery”) by Li Zhi (李贽, 1527–1602)
Li Zhi was against Daoxue orthodoxy, but not Confucius himself. In his monastery, he still hung a portrait of Confucius. If we treat Confucianism as a religion, what Li Zhi did was abandon the church while still venerating Jesus. For orthodox Daoxue scholars, Laozi and the Buddha were heretics as well. This makes for another interesting story in Chinese intellectual history regarding the tension among the Three Teachings.
Unpacking the sentence:
皆 (jiē) — all, everyone — modern phrases like 皆大歡喜
以 … 為 … (yǐ … wéi …) — the frame “take X as Y.”
以為 (yǐwéi) — the same frame: 以(之)為, “take (him) for” — A drift here: modern 以为 means to assume almost always wrongly. Classical 以為 states a judgment, equals think.
異端 (yìduān) — heresy
非 … 也 (fēi … yě) — the negative judgment frame “it is not that…”
熟 (shú) — familiar
DAY 6
父師非真知大聖與異端也，
Fùshī fēi zhēn zhī dà shèng yǔ yìduān yě,
以所聞於儒先之教者熟也。
yǐ suǒ wén yú rúxiān zhī jiào zhě shú yě.
儒先亦非真知大聖與異端也，
Rúxiān yì fēi zhēn zhī dà shèng yǔ yìduān yě,
以孔子有是言也。
yǐ Kǒngzǐ yǒu shì yán yě.
其曰「聖則吾不能」，是居謙也。
Qí yuē “shèng zé wú bù néng”, shì jū qiān yě.
“Nor did our fathers and teachers truly know sage from heretic, what they had heard from the early scholars’ teaching was familiar. Nor did the early scholars truly know. Confucius had said the words. And when he said ‘A sage — that I cannot manage,’ well, that was him being modest.”
— 續焚書·題孔子像於芝佛院 (A Book to Burn, Continued, “On an Image of Confucius at the Zhifo Monastery”) by Li Zhi (李贽, 1527–1602)
Confucius became a sage only through repetitive veneration by later generations. People kept repeating the verdict they had heard without critically examining it. Confucius once said, “若圣与仁，则吾岂敢” (As for sagehood and benevolence, how could I dare?). He did not consider himself to be a sage. Li Zhi, who was also a Confucian, points out here that even Confucius was modest about his own attainments. Therefore, the concept of the infallible “sage” did not genuinely exist, but was invented later on.
Unpacking the sentence:
父師 (fùshī) — fathers and teachers — note that Chinese lacks dedicated plural inflection.
非 … 也 (fēi … yě) — the negative judgment frame: “it is not that…”
儒先 (rúxiān) — the early scholars / earlier Confucians.
以 (yǐ) — because; the same 以 that closed Day 5.
熟 (shú) — familiar. Day 5’s diagnosis returns as the fathers’ alibi: they didn’t know either—it was just familiar to them too.
是 (shì) — this, these. Classical Chinese 是 is a demonstrative pronoun (a pointing word). 有是言 is “said these words,” and 是居謙也 is “this was dwelling in modesty.” The modern copula verb “to be” (shì) evolved directly from this usage.
曰 (yuē) — said; the classical quotation verb.
聖則吾不能 (shèng zé wú bù néng) — “聖” (sagehood) is fronted to the beginning as a topicalized object to emphasize the concept itself. The base word order is “吾不能聖”.
居謙 (jū qiān) — to dwell in modesty / to act out of humility.
If my insights brought you a fresh perspective, please consider supporting me by buying me a coffee. Your generosity fuels my writing.
Oooohh, I like him... "He argued that the Six Classics, the Analects, and the Mencius were largely eulogies composed by court historians or fragmentary notes kept by muddled disciples who recorded partial recollections without context."
thanks for this piece, I was ignorant about him. As a slight footnote, we simply ‘quit’ an occupation, quitted is archaic.