‘Ru’ versus ‘Li’: The Divergence between the Generalist and the Specialist in the Northern Song

Abstract

‘Ru’ versus ‘Li’:The Divergence between the Generalist and the Specialist in the Northern Song Ya Zuo The idea that officials can be divided into two kinds, one valued for their cultural virtuosity, the other confined to quotidian tasks, is not a Northern Song invention. Since the Han dynasty (206 bce–220 ce) at the latest, this idea had already formed in response to the institutionalization of Confucianism. The state’s official endorsement set off a series of changes: the canonization of the so-called Confucian classics, the rise of ru 儒 (roughly translated as “Confucian scholars” during this time)1 as a new political force, and the growth of their self-awareness, one that drove them to seek not only political perpetuation but also representation of their ideology in government. These scholars staged a contrast between themselves and li 吏 (conventionally translated as “administrators”): another kind of bureaucrat cultivated in the previous Qin dynasty (221−206 bce). The image of a li was of someone intellectually obedient, empirically knowledgeable, and efficient in day-to-day administration.2 [End Page 85] Calling someone a ru or a li was essentially a labeling practice. In the ages subsequent to the Han, people picked up the practice for reasons specific to various historical contexts.3 The dichotomy of ru and li in the Northern Song is one among many other variants. Although novelty was not its remarkable feature, it had grown into a massive discursive phenomenon in the Song. Literati from all over the empire used this dichotomy in their writings, and the range of genres ran from personal musings to public memorials. The examples cited in the next section exemplify a vast body of writing. The most immediate goal of this study is to seek a translation of this dichotomy which more accurately captures its historical propositions in the Northern Song. The new translation I propose is “the generalist” versus “the specialist.” My choice of terms has a distant echo in Max Weber and his early judgments on the nature of the officialdom.4 But a generalization of institutional reality is not my concern. This article is a study of ideas and remains firmly grounded in historical voices. The Problem and Terminology My selection of examples focuses on the early to mid-Northern Song, especially the first half of the eleventh century. It was an age of reforms and revolutionary ideas. The newly founded dynasty had enforced civil service examinations, a meritocratic mechanism to recruit talented men who would serve in the government in place of the bygone aristocracy. Eager to envisage more effective forms of government, these examination-generated literati [End Page 86] propounded myriad reform ideas and implemented a number of them. The key figures in this study, such as Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修 (1007−1072) and Li Gou 李覯 (1009−1059), were among the major advocates of the Qingli 慶曆 Reform (1043−45) initiated by Fan Zhongyan 范仲淹 (989−1052). This movement, though short-lived, gave birth to an enduring legacy of reform.5 Other featured figures, such as Sima Guang 司馬光 (1019−1086) and Wang Anshi 王安石 (1021−1086), perpetuated this legacy. Literati in the Northern Song had a reputation for enthusiastically instilling cultural visions into political solutions.6 None of the aforementioned historical figures shared a strong consensus with one another in their specific political philosophies; some of them even engaged in long-term mutual antagonism. Yet the dichotomy between ru and li, as I will show in the following sections, connected them in ways that transcended the notorious factional rivalries. In 1066, the third year of the Zhiping 治平 reign (1064−1067), Ouyang Xiu submitted two memorials in a row to suggest amendments to the current recruitment policy of the Imperial Libraries.7 A main problem, in his view, was that the recruiting authority “prioritizes competence and neglects ru learning” (先材能而後儒學), and “values undertakings of li and discounts literary composition.” (貴吏事而賤文章).8 By juxtaposing the two contrasts Ouyang staged a distinction, one that differentiated officials primarily identified with ru learning and literary talent from those competent in li type of tasks. Deeply concerned, Ouyang elaborated his definitions of the two types. [End Page 87] He called the first group “ministers of ru learning” (ruxue zhi chen 儒學之臣), and...