No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 May 2022
For almost a thousand years, Chinese scholars have debated the existence of a Classic of Music in pre-Qin times. Some say the text once existed but was later lost; others say it was incorporated into other works, or that it only existed as a collection of musical scores. Some say it never existed at all. Though Western scholars have tended to sidestep the issue, most have at least assumed that it was believed during Han that a music classic had once existed.
Not only is there no convincing evidence that a music classic existed during the Warring States era, however, few if any in the Han believed that it had. Indeed, the first claims that a Classic of Music had once existed emerged only in the latter part of the Six Dynasties era. This article will introduce the debates that have animated scholars on this controversy, examine the evidence for the existence of a pre-Qin music classic, and identify when Chinese scholars came to believe that such a text had once existed. I will argue that the belief that a classic music text had previously been extant reflects early medieval misunderstandings of the role occupied by written texts in antiquity.
《樂經》於先秦時期存世與否，中國學界在過去近一千年並無定論。或言其先存而後佚；或言納入他作；或言其僅以樂譜集之形式存在；或言本無《樂經》。儘管西方學者傾向於迴避此問題，但絕大多數至少假定漢時人們相信有一部音樂經典著作曾存世。
然而，不僅沒有確鑿證據表明有一部音樂經典著作於戰國時期存在，甚至鮮有漢朝人持此觀點。事實上，最早有關《樂經》曾存在過的觀點於六朝後期才出現。本文將介紹這場學術爭論之緣起，審查有關一部先秦音樂經典著作存世的證據，進而確定中國學者開始相信此著作曾存於世的時間點。我將論證，認為曾有一部音樂經典著作存世的看法反映了中古社會早期對書面文本在古代社會中所扮演的角色的誤解。
I presented an early version of this article at the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Western Branch of the American Oriental Society in Davis, California, where I was able to benefit from conversations with Michael Fuller, Donald Harper, Antje Richter, Stuart Sargent, and Anna Shields. I would also like to thank Sarah Allan, Billy French, Wen-Yi Huang, and the two anonymous reviewers for their help with the final version. Needless to say, any remaining errors are my own.
1. Indeed, even the Qianlong Emperor 乾隆帝 (r. 1735–1796) was moved to wonder in verse “why the Classic of Music alone was not transmitted” 樂經何事獨無傳; see Jun, Tian 田君, “‘Yue jing’ kaoyi”《樂經》考疑, Beifang luncong 2013.2, 116Google Scholar.
2. The most important statements on this topic were collected in the Qing 清 (1644–1912) by Zhu Yizun 朱彝尊 (1629–1709), who incorporated them into his monumental Jingyi kao 經義考. See the Sibu beiyao 四部備要 edition (Taipei: Taiwan Zhonghua, 1965), 167.1a–6a. For more recent overviews that take into account the views of contemporary scholars, see Zhou Yutong 周予同, Zhou Yutong jingxueshi lunzhu xuanji 周予同經學史論著選集 (Shanghai: Shanghai renmin, 1983), 209; Jun, Tian, “Lidai ‘Yue jing’ lunshuo liupai kao” 歷代《樂經》論說流派考, Zhongguo yinyuexue 2010.4, 31–35Google Scholar; Jianjun, Yuan 袁建軍, “Xiandai xin rujia Xiong Shili de yinyue sixiang tanxi” 現代新儒家熊十力的音樂思想探析, Jilin yishu xueyuan xuebao 2015.2, 2–5Google Scholar; Nie Linxiao 聶麟梟, “‘Yue ben wujing’—cong jingxueshi yu ‘liuyi’ jiaoxue huodong jiedu ‘Yue jing’ yi’an” “樂本無經”—從經學史與 “六藝” 教學活動解讀 “樂經” 疑案, Renmin yinyue 2011.8, 59–62; Wang Qizhou 王齊洲, “‘Yue jing’ shenmi” 《樂經》神秘, Jiangxi shifan daxue xuebao 52.1 2019, 79–90; and Fu Daobin 傅道彬, “‘Yue jing bu que’ yu Zhoudai yinyue jingdian de tixixing goucheng” “樂經不缺” 與周代音樂經典的體系性構成, Ha’er bin gongye daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 22.1 (2020), 58–69.
3. One exception is Erica Brindley, “Cultural Identity and the Canonization of Music in Early China,” Monumenta Serica 64.2 (2016), 257–60, who argues that the “canon” of music was probably a “cultural repertoire” rather than a fixed text in antiquity (257).
4. See, for example, Nylan, Michael, The Five “Confucian” Classics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 20;Google Scholar Nylan, The Chinese Pleasure Book (New York: Zone Books, 2018), 81–82, 279, 309; and Hunter, Michael, “Early Sources for Confucius,” in A Concise Companion to Confucius, ed. Goldin, Paul R. (Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 2017), 17Google Scholar. The vast majority of Chinese scholars also adopt this position. A notable exception is Ansheng, Deng 鄧安生, “Lun ‘liuyi’ yu ‘liujing’” 論 “六藝” 與 “六經,” Nankai xuebao 2000.2, 1–9Google Scholar, though Wang Baoxuan 王葆玹, Xi-Han jingxue yuanliu 西漢經學源流 (Taipei: Dongda tushu gongsi, 2008), 34 also doubts that the existence of a music classic was universally accepted in Western Han 西漢 (202 b.c.e.–9 c.e.).
5. On this point, see Martin Kern, “Kongzi as Author in the Han,” in Confucius and the Analects Revisited: New Perspectives on Composition, Dating, and Authorship, ed. Michael Hunter and Martin Kern (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 270.
6. Ban Gu 班固 (32–92 c.e.), Han shu 漢書 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1962), 30.1701. See also Piet van der Loon, “On the Transmission of the Kuan-tzu,” T’oung Pao 41.1–2 (1952), 357–93.
7. In my translations, I adopt Erica Brindley’s (“Cultural Identity and the Canonization of Music in Early China,” 258 n. 6) method of capitalizing the first letter but leaving the word itself unitalicized (Odes, Documents, and so on) to reflect the oft-found ambiguity as to whether it denotes the title of a text, a textual genre, or a way of designating a category of knowledge and/or practice. When referring to the classic texts around which these categories of learning were later to become centered, including the hypothetical Classic of Music, I use italics.
8. See Guodian Chumu zhujian 郭店楚墓竹簡, ed. Jingmen shi bowuguan (Beijing: Wenwu, 1998), 79–80, 194–95, 200 n. 6–7. Scott Cook, The Bamboo Texts of Guodian: A Study & Complete Translation (Ithaca: East Asia Program, Cornell University), vol. 2, 809–10 describes the difficulties involved in reconstructing the manuscript.
9. I follow Liu Zhao‘s 劉釗 reading of this graph cited in Cook, The Bamboo Texts of Guodian, vol. 2, 835 n. 151.
10. Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own.
11. Scholars who have cited this passage as evidence for the existence of six written classics in pre-Qin times include Holloway, Kenneth W., Guodian: The Newly Discovered Seeds of Chinese Religious and Political Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 41–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Liu Quanzhi 劉全志, “Lun ‘Yue jing’ de jiben xingtai ji qi zai Zhanguo de chuanbo” 論《樂經》的基本形態及其在戰國的傳播, Nanjing yishu xueyuan xuebao 2013.2, 83; and Lu, Zhao, In Pursuit of the Great Peace: Han Dynasty Classicism and the Making of Early Medieval Literati Culture (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2019), 20–21Google Scholar. Scholars have drawn similar conclusions from references in other excavated or looted manuscript corpora; see, for example, Li Xueqin 李學勤 quoted in Zhao Fenghua 趙鳳華, “‘Qinghua jian’ yanjiu faxian leisi Yue jing de shige” “清華簡”研究發現類似樂經詩歌, Keji ribao (April 28, 2009; preserved at http://tech.sina.com.cn/d/2009–04–28/11133045284.shtml, accessed on December 9, 2021) and Liu Quanzhi, “Lun ‘Yue jing’ de jiben xingtai ji qi zai zhanguo de chuanbo,” 92.
12. Ruyue, He and Nylan, Michael, “On Citation Practices in the Guodian Manuscripts,” in Dao Companion to the Excavated Guodian Bamboo Manuscripts, ed. Chan, Shirley (New York: Springer, 2019), 59Google Scholar, note that the vast majority of Chinese scholars interpret this passage as confirmation of the existence of six written classics c. 300 b.c.e., though they identify Li Ling 李零 as an exception; see Li Ling, Guodian Chujian jiaodu ji 郭店楚簡校讀記 (Beijing: Zhongguo renmin daxue, 2007), 213. For this reason, He and Nylan prefer to talk of “six bibliographic categories.” Christoph Harbsmeier, “A Reading of the Guōdiàn 郭店 Manuscript Yŭcóng 語叢 1 as a Masterpiece of Early Chinese Analytic Philosophy and Conceptual Analysis,” Studies in Logic 4.3 (2011), 53, likewise finds it “plausible” that these graphs “refer generically to text types rather than to any concrete books.” For his part, Kern, “Kongzi as Author in the Han,” 288, 288 n. 60 is careful to talk of “curricula,” “repertoires,” and “discourses” of both “textual and ritual practices” when considering this passage.
13. Generally, when referring to texts in this article I mean written texts. Of course, texts can also exist in non-written form, as in speech and memory.
14. See Guodian Chumu zhujian, 70–71, 188.
15. I follow the interpretations of these two graphs offered by Zijin, Wang 王子今, “Guodian jian ‘Liude’ ‘shankua,’ ‘duanshan’ shijie” 郭店簡《六德》「訕誇」「斷訕」試解, Jianduxue yanjiu 3 (2002), 43–47Google Scholar.
16. See Cook, The Bamboo Texts of Guodian, vol. 2, 764–70 for a detailed discussion of the different slip sequences that have been proposed for this manuscript.
17. Indeed, when the same text describes “Rituals and Music as that which bring people together” (禮樂，共也), surely it is the effects of music qua music that are being discussed, rather than the contents of a musical text.
18. The verb guan can be used to refer to the consumption of both written texts and ritual or musical performance. For an example of the latter in the Guodian manuscript corpus, see Human Nature is Mandated (Xing zi ming chu 性自命出) (Guodian Chumu zhujian, 180). Indeed, guan and yue are commonly paired in early texts.
19. Guodian Chumu zhujian, 62, 179, 182 n. 8–10.
20. I follow the interpretation of these two graphs proposed in Li Ling, Guodian Chujian jiaodu ji, 137, 145.
21. This text has a parallel in the Discourse on Nature and Disposition (Xingqing lun 性情論) from the looted Shanghai Museum manuscript collection (c. 300 b.c.e.).
22. Thus, see the translation choices in Brindley, “Cultural Identity and the Canonization of Music in Early China,” 257–58. He and Nylan, “On Citation Practices in the Guodian Manuscripts,” 59 n. 64, state that this list “almost certainly does not refer to specific Classics.”
23. Xunzi jijie 荀子集解, ed. Wang Xianqian 王先謙 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1988), 1.11–12.
24. Honda Shigeyuki 本田成之, Zhongguo jingxueshi 中國經學史, trans. Sun Lianggong 孫俍工 (Shanghai: Shanghai shudian, 2001), 4, actually argues that because the terms songjing and duli occur separately in this passage, the latter phrase probably does not refer to the reading of a classic text. Instead, Honda interpreted “reading rituals aloud” as a reference to the kinds of funerary rites described in texts like the “Quli” 曲禮 chapter of the Li ji.
25. Thus, Nylan, The Five “Confucian” Classics, 11 (unnumbered footnote) contends that these references to rituals and music probably signify “performance traditions, some parts of which were written down only in the Han and some parts of which were never transcribed.” By contrast, Xing Wen 邢文, “Taigu zhi sheng: Han-Jin guqin, shikong zhuanhuan yu ‘Yue’ jing de zai renshi” 太古之聲: 漢晉古琴，時空轉換與《樂》經的再認識, Minzu yishu 2012.2, 16–17 cites this passage as confirmation that a music classic existed in the Warring States.
26. Xunzi jijie, 4.133.
27. Several passages from the Zhuangzi 莊子 are also commonly cited as evidence that a pre-Qin music classic once existed. Since these passages most likely postdate the Warring States era, however, perhaps by as much as several centuries, they will be dealt with later in this article.
28. Harbsmeier, “A Reading of the Guōdiàn 郭店 Manuscript Yŭcóng 語叢 1,” 53, notes that the way Spring and Autumn Annals are described in the Thicket of Sayings, for example, suggests “a more abstract notion of history than merely that of the events of the past.”
29. See Kern, Martin, “The Odes in Excavated Manuscripts,” in Text and Ritual in Early China, ed. Kern, Martin (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005), 149–93Google Scholar. Odes as a category of learning may also have included pedagogical statements like those found in the so-called Confucius’ Discourse on the Odes (Kongzhi shilun 孔子詩論) from the looted Shanghai Museum corpus.
30. See the editors’ “Introduction” in Origins of Chinese Political Philosophy: Studies in the Composition and Thought of the Shangshu (Classic of Documents), ed. Martin Kern and Dirk Meyer (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 1–22, esp. 6–7.
31. Nie Linxiao, “‘Yue ben wujing,” 59–60, is doubtless correct when he observes that in the pre-Qin period these were primarily six types of “educational activity” (jiaoxue huodong 教學活動) rather than six classic texts.
32. See Yucai, Liu and Habberstad, Luke, “The Life of a Text: A Brief History of the Li ji 禮記 (Rites Records) and Its Transmission,” Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture 1 (2014), 289–308Google Scholar.
33. In the Han, the “Yue ji” 樂記 chapter of the Li ji was often looked to as the authoritative source of musical knowledge. Contrary to the claims of some scholars, however, the text was not composed to replace a missing music classic (see below). For ritual and music as bodies of practices rather than authoritative texts in the Warring States era, see Vankeerberghen, Griet, “Texts and Authors in the Shi ji,” in China’s Early Empires: A Re-Appraisal, ed. Nylan, Michael and Loewe, Michael (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 474Google Scholar.
34. That is, without their commentarial traditions the Odes and Documents are actual poems and speeches, the Changes are actual divinatory statements, and Spring and Autumn Annals are actual records. A text about ritual or music, however, is never the same as ritual or music itself.
35. Xunzi jijie, 1.14. This is in contrast to the Odes and Documents, which “contain precedents yet are not apposite” (故而不切), and Spring and Autumn Annals, which are “terse yet offer no shortcuts” (約而不速).
36. Indeed, that fact that we know that ritual knowledge never crystallized into a single authoritative text during the Han, while Ritual was nevertheless routinely regarded as a “classic” (jing 經) should force us to reconsider the meaning of these terms in the context of Han classicism; see below.
37. See below for a more extended discussion of this issue.
38. See the Qianlong Wuyingdian keben 乾隆武英殿刻本 edition of Siku quanshu zongmu tiyao 四庫全書總目提要, 38.627. Curiously, the dearth of quotations from a classic music text in early sources is little remarked upon. Two exceptions are Cook, The Bamboo Texts of Guodian, vol. 1, 135 and Li Tingting 李婷婷, “‘Yue jing’ kaolun” 《樂經》考論, Zhongguo wenhua yanjiu 2010.2, 169.
39. See Shang shu dazhuan shuzheng 尚書大傳疏證, ed. Pi Xirui 皮錫瑞, in Pi Xirui quanji 皮錫瑞全集, ed. Wu Yangxiang 吳仰湘 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2015), vol. 1, 2.65.
40. See Li, Wai-yee, The Readability of the Past in Early Chinese Historiography (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2007), 118–47Google Scholar.
41. On music in the Lun yu, see Scott Cook, “Unity and Diversity in the Musical Thought of Warring States China” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1995), 114–45 and Brindley, Erica Fox, Music, Cosmology, and the Politics of Harmony in Early China (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2012), 95–99Google Scholar.
42. In the sole surviving “Feiyue” 非樂 chapter of the Mozi, for example, there is no mention of any sort of music classic, though the chapter contains numerous citations from other texts. Likewise, a history of music from the time of Yao 堯 and Shun 舜 is provided in the “Sanbian” 三辯 chapter, which even names individual pieces supposedly composed by the former sage-kings, though a music text is never mentioned. See Mozi jiaozhu 墨子校注, ed. Wu Minjiang 吳敏江 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1993), 1.65, 8.79–99. For music in the Mozi, see Cook, “Unity and Diversity in the Musical Thought of Warring States China,” 202–44 and Brindley, Music, Cosmology, and the Politics of Harmony in Early China, 6, 99, 100, 144.
43. For music in the Mengzi, see Cook, “Unity and Diversity in the Musical Thought of Warring States China,” 245–301.
44. The “Yue lun” 樂論 chapter of the Xunzi contains numerous reported statements on various aspects of music, overlapping exactly in places with the “Yue ji” chapter of the Li ji, but a music text is never mentioned or cited; see Xunzi jijie, 14.379–85. On music in the Xunzi, see Cook, “Unity and Diversity in the Musical Thought of Warring States China,” 372–456; Cook, “Xun Zi on Ritual and Music,” Monumenta Serica 45 (1997), 1–38; and Brindley, Music, Cosmology, and the Politics of Harmony in Early China, 33, 45–49, 55–57, 106–10, 112–16, 137–38, 140–41, 161.
45. The Lüshi chunqiu contains no fewer than six chapters dedicated to various aspects of music: the “Dayue” 大樂, “Chiyue” 侈樂, “Shiyin” 適音, “Guyue” 古樂, “Yinlü” 音律, and “Yinchu” 音初. These chapters contain references to music masters and musical instruction; information about notes, tones, and pitch standards; discussions of good and bad music, the origins of music, and the relationship between music and the cosmos; the names of different songs and musical instruments; and descriptions of the historical circumstances surrounding the composition of different songs. At no point, however, is a classic music text ever quoted or described. By contrast, the Lüshi chunqiu quotes the Odes, Documents, and Changes numerous times. See Lüshi chunqiu jishi 呂氏春秋集釋, ed. Xu Weiyu 許維遹 (2009; rpt. Beijing: Zhonghua, 2010), 5.108–128, 6, 134–43.
46. See Kaufmann, Walter, Musical References in the Chinese Classics 樂經論 (Detroit: Information Coordinators, 1976), 173–92Google Scholar for a translation of the music passages in the Zhou li. The Zhou li contains detailed information about musical performance and instruction (including the duties, roles, and methods of different types of music masters), descriptions of different types of music, the names of musical pieces and dance suites, and technical information related to tones, bells, and performance techniques. Despite this, the only music text that is ever mentioned is a ledger (ban 版) used to record students’ names; see Zhou li zhengyi 周禮正義, ed. Sun Yirang 孫詒讓 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1987), 44.1822. The complete absence of a classic music text in the Zhou li is particularly telling, for if the Zhou li represents an attempt to map out the structure of the Zhou government in antiquity, it seems that its compilers did not believe that a music classic had played a role in musical instruction during that time.
47. Again, the complete absence in these texts of clear references to a classic music text goes largely unmentioned in the scholarship, though Deng Ansheng, “Lun ‘Liuyi’ yu ‘Liujing’” is an exception.
48. Lun yu zhengyi 論語正義, ed. Liu Baonan 劉寶楠 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1990), 4.130.
49. Lun yu zhengyi, 9.298.
50. Lun yu zhengyi, 10.345.
51. Lun yu zhengyi, 18.621–24.
52. Lun yu zhengyi, 20.691.
53. Huang Lili 黃麗麗, “Liujing cixu bian” 六經次序辨, Gansu shehui kexue 2008.5, 143–44 is one of the few to dwell on this fact.
54. The Zhou li lists music and rituals alongside archery (she 射), charioteering (yu 御/馭), writing (shu 書), and mathematics (shu 數) as part of a set of Six Arts (liuyi 六藝) that formed the core of gentlemanly education (Zhou li zhengyi, 19.756, 26.1010). In the Han, the term Six Arts came to be used mainly to designate six bibliographic categories centered on the Shi jing, Shang shu, Zhou Yi 周易, Chun qiu 春秋, and texts on ritual and music; see below for a more detailed discussion.
55. The Guo yu 國語 credits musical instruction (jiao) with the power to “clear away filth and suppress frivolity” (疏其穢而鎮其浮); see Guo yu jijie 國語集解, ed. Yu Yuangao 徐元誥 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2002), 485 (“Chuyu shang” 楚語上). Though music and ritual are listed in this passage alongside different types of texts including Spring and Autumn Annals, genealogies (shi 世), statutes (ling 令), sayings (yu 語), old records (guzhi 故志), and admonitions and canons (xundian 訓典), the passage seems to refer to music and ritual as bibliographic categories or sets of prescribed cultural practices rather than to specific texts.
56. See Li Tingting, “‘Yue jing’ kaolun,” 174–75; Tian Jun, “Lidai ‘Yue jing’ lunshuo liupai kao,” 33; Tian Jun, “Guoxue mingjia ‘Yue jing’ lunshuo huikao” 國學名家《樂經》論說匯考, Jiaoxiang—Xi’an yinyue xueyuan xuebao 2012.1, 63; and Liu Quanzhi, “Lun ‘Yue jing’ de jiben xingtai ji qi zai zhanguo de chuanbo,” 83. More recently, Jingshu qiantan 經書淺談, ed. Yang Bojun 楊伯峻 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1984), 3, and Li Tingting, “‘Yue jing’ kaolun” have also speculated that the Classic of Music may have been some sort of score collection. For a rebuttal, see Zhou Guolin 周國林, “Liujing cixu ji qi youguan wenti” 六經次序及其有關問題, in Lishi wenxianxue lunji 歷史文獻學論集, ed. Zhou Guolin and Liu Shaojun 劉韶軍 (Wuhan: Chongwen, 2003), 156.
57. See Wang Qizhou, “‘Yue jing’ shenmi,” 85; Tian Jun, “Lidai ‘Yue jing’ lunshuo liupai kao,” 32–33; and Li Tingting, “‘Yue jing’ kaolun,” 170–71. Xu Shizheng’s comments are included in Jingyi kao, 167.2b. Liu Shipei 劉師培 (1884–1919) also believed that the Classic of Music had been a “textbook of songs and models of bodily movements” (唱歌課本以及體操之模範), and in a similar vein, Fan Wenlan 范文瀾 (1893–1969) argued that the Classic of Music was a textbook of musical scores that Confucius had edited from pre-existing material. See Liu Shipei, Liu Shipei jiang jingxue 劉師培講經學 (Nanjing: Fenghuang, 2008), 11, and Fan Wenlan, “Jingxueshi jiangyan lu,” 經學史講演錄 in Lishi lunwen xuanji 歷史論文選集, ed. Fan Wenlan (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue, 1979), 301–2. See also Xu Fuguan 徐復觀, Lun jingxueshi er zhong 論經學史二種 (Shanghai: Shanghai shudian, 2002), 8 n. 1, and Qiu Qiongsun 丘瓊蓀, Lidai Yue zhi lü zhi jiaoshi, di yi fence 歷代樂志律志校釋, 第一分册 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1964), 2, who cites Wu Cheng and Wang Xuan 汪烜 (1692–1759) in support of his argument that the Classic of Music consisted primarily of musical notations rather than words that could be recited. More recently, Cheng Xiangru 成相如, “Yue jing’ mishi kaolüe”《樂經》迷失考略, Anhui wenxue 2009.11, 171, 178, has espoused a similar view to that of Liu Shipei.
58. See Li Tingting, “Yue jing’ kaolun,” 175. More recently, Xiang Yang 項陽, “‘Liudai yuewu’ wei ‘Yue jing’ shuo” “六代樂舞” 為《樂經》說, Zhongguo wenhua 31 (2010), 26–35, has claimed that the Classic of Music represented the “classic” songs and dances formulated from the time of the Yellow Emperor 黃帝 through the reign of King Wu of Zhou 周武王 (r. 1045–1043 b.c.e.), and that these songs and dances were abandoned and subsequently lost during Qin. Xiang argues that, absent a system for transcribing music and dance, the loss of the Classic of Music occurred rather quickly, and his findings are basically followed by Sun Zhentian 孫振田 and Fan Chunyi 范春義, “Cong ‘Han zhi’ kan ‘Yue jing’ wei ‘liudai yuewu’ shuo zhi chengli—jianlun ‘Han zhi’ zhi ‘Yue’ lei de zhulu wenti” 從《漢志》看“樂經”為“六代樂舞”說之成立—兼論《漢志》之《樂》類的著錄問題, Yinyue yanjiu 2015.6, 39–49. Contra Xiang Yang, those who have doubted whether music and dance could count as “classics” (jing) include Xu Fuguan, Lun jingxueshi er zhong, 24, and Luo Yifeng 羅藝峰, “You ‘Yue wei’ de yanjiu yinshen dao ‘Yue jing’ yu ‘Yue ji’ de wenti” 由《樂緯》的研究引申到《樂經》與《樂記》的問題, in Han-Tang yinyueshi: shoujie guoji yantaohui lunwenji 漢唐音樂史: 首屆國際研討會論文集, ed. Xi’an yinyue xueyuan Xibei minzu yinyue yanjiu zhongxin (Beijing: Zhongyang yinyuexueyuan, 2008), 26.
59. See Liu Quanzhi, “Lun ‘Yue jing’ de jiben xingtai ji qi zai zhanguo de chuanbo,” 83, and Tian Jun, “Guoxue mingjia ‘Yue jing’ lunshuo huikao,” 63. Ye’s comments are included in Jingyi kao, 167.1b. Others who have doubted that music was recorded in writing in the Warring States include Liu Qiyu 劉起釪, “Shang shu shuolüe” 尚書說略, in Jingshi shuolüe 經史說略, ed. Wang Zhonghan 王鐘翰 (Beijing: Beijing yanshan, 2002), 30–31; Nie Linxiao, “‘Yue ben wujing,” 61; and Chen Tongsheng 陳桐生, “Ruhe pojie liujing que “Yue” zhi mi” 如何破解六經缺《樂》之謎, Xueshu yanjiu 2020.2, 147–52.
60. For a dated but still useful overview of premodern Chinese musical notations, see Kaufmann, Walter, Musical Notations of the Orient: Notational Systems of Continental East, South, and Central Asia (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1967), 9–119Google Scholar, 174–82. For an overview of premodern dance notation systems, see Farnell, Brenda, “Movement Notation Systems,” Journal for the Anthropological Study of Human Movement 13.3 (2005), 145–70Google Scholar. I am indebted to one of the anonymous reviewers for leading me to this last reference.
61. See Nie Linxiao, “‘Yue ben wujing,” 61. Avital Rom considers evidence suggesting that music masters typically copied music they heard by playing it rather than transcribing it, and her arguments are consistent with the near total absence of written texts in scenes of musical instruction contained in early works (see below). See Rom, Avital, “Echoing Rulership—Understanding Musical References in the Huainanzi,” Early China 40 (2017), 129 n. 14Google Scholar.
62. See, for example, Falkenhausen, Lothar von, “The Zeng Hou Yi Finds in the History of Chinese Music,” in Music in the Age of Confucius, ed. So, Jenny F. (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2000), 110Google Scholar.
63. The “Yiwen zhi” chapter of the Han shu mentions a music specialist named Mr. Zhi 制氏 who was apparently “somewhat able to transcribe” (頗能紀) the sounds and movements of pre-Qin music and dance at the beginning of Han, though he was unable to describe their “meaning” (yi 義); see Han shu, 30.1712, and the parallel passage in Han shu, 22.1043. Qiu Qiongsun, Lidai Yue zhi lü zhi jiaoshi, 2, understands this story to mean that Zhi was unable to explain the meaning of pre-Qin music since the Classic of Music consisted mostly of musical notations rather than explanatory passages about music that could be passed down.
64. Ye’s comments are preserved in Jingyi kao, 167.1b. For Lin Jie’s position, see Tian Jun, “Lidai ‘Yue jing’ lunshuo liupai kao,” 31 and Tian Jun, “Guoxue mingjia ‘Yue jing’ lunshuo huikao,” 63–64.
65. Shen’s comments are preserved in Jingyi kao, 167.2b.
66. Hu’s comments are preserved in Jingyi kao, 167, 1a–1b. Liu’s position was later endorsed by the likes of Zhu Zaiyu 朱載堉 (1536–1611); see Li Tingting, “‘Yue jing’ kaolun,” 170.
67. Li Tingting, “‘Yue jing’ kaolun,” 170.
68. Fu Linpeng 付林鵬 and Cao Shenggao 曹勝高, “Cong yuejiao chuantong lun ‘Yue jing’ zhi xingcheng yu canyi” 從樂教傳統論《樂經》之形成與殘佚, Huangzhong (Wuhan yinyue xueyuan xuebao) 2010.1, 141, and Nie Linxiao, “‘Yue ben wu jing,’” 59. Zhu Ziqing 朱自清 also believed that there had been no separate music classic in pre-Qin times; see Ziqing, Zhu, Shi yan zhi bian 詩言志辨 (Taipei: Wunan tushu, 2012), 156Google Scholar.
69. See, for example, Qian Mu 錢穆, Guoxue gailun 國學概論 (Taipei: Taiwan shangwu, 1956), 18 and Meng Wentong 蒙文通, Jingxue jueyuan 經學抉原 (Shanghai: Shanghai renmin, 2006), 63, who both believed that the Classic of Music had been the music of the Shi jing. Chen Dengyuan 陳登原, Liujing xingzhi kaoding 六經性質考定, in his Guoshi jiuwen 國史舊聞 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2000), vol. 1, 419, also accepts the close association in ancient times between the Odes and music.
70. Chen Qiyuan evidently followed a similar line of reasoning when he refuted the argument that the Classic of Music had been nothing more than the Shi jing, noting instead that music and Odes had in fact been taught separately; see Tian Jun, “Lidai ‘Yue jing’ lunshuo liupai kao,” 33.
71. Li Tingting, “‘Yue jing’ kaolun,” 174.
72. See Wang Qizhou, “‘Yue jing’ shenmi,” 84–85; Li Tingting, “‘Yue jing’ kaolun,” 174; and Tian Jun, “Lidai ‘Yue jing’ lunshuo liupai kao,” 32.
73. Han shu, 30.1712. This theory was refuted as early as the Song by Hu Yin (Jingyi kao, 167.1a–1b), Wang Yinglin 王應麟 (1223–1296), and Wang Zhaoyu 王昭禹 (Northern Song 北宋 [960–1127]), who noted that the “Yue ji” had in fact been composed during the reign of Emperor Wu (Jingyi kao, 167.3b); see Nie Linxiao, “‘Yue ben wu jing,’” 61 and Wang Qizhou, “‘Yue jing’ shenmi,” 85. Xu Fuguan, Lun jingxueshi er zhong, 8 n. 1, also dismisses this argument.
74. Luo Yifeng, “You ‘Yue wei’ de yanjiu yinshen dao ‘Yue jing’ yu ‘Yue ji’ de wenti,” argues that because the apocryphal music texts (Yu wei 樂緯) (see below) and Kong Yingda’s 孔穎達 (574–648) zhengyi 正義 (“corrected meanings”) commentary to the Li ji seem to treat the “Yue ji” as a sort of classic (jing), this proves that the Classic of Music was preserved in that text. However, Nylan, The Five “Confucian” Classics (separately published notes for p. 20 of main text) maintains that the “Yue ji” is “so highly influenced by Five Phases thinking” that it “cannot date from a very early period.” Cook, “Yue Ji—Record of Music,” 2, argues that the text derives from the mid-Western Han at the latest, though he accepts that it contains much Warring States-era thought.
75. These include works by Chen Yang 陳暘 (1064–1128), Fang Shu 房庶 (Northern Song), Cai Yuanding 蔡元定 (1135–1198), and Wu Renjie 吳仁傑 (Southern Song 南宋, 1127–1279); see Xu Zaiyang 許在揚, “Chen Yang ji qi Yue shu yanjiu zhong de yixie wenti” 陳暘及其《樂書》研究中的一些問題, Huangzhong (Wuhan yinyue xueyuan xuebao) 2008.2, 102–12, and Li Tingting, “‘Yue jing’ kaolun,” 174.
76. Modern scholars who have endorsed this theory include Xiong Shili 熊十力, Lun liujing ⋅ Zhongguo lishi jianghua 論六經 ⋅ 中國歷史講話 (Beijing: Zhongguo renmin daxue, 2006), 11, 17; Xia Chuancai 夏傳才, Shisan jing jiangzuo 十三經講座 (Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue, 2006), 11; Sun Rongrong 孫蓉蓉,“‘Yue wei’ yu ‘Yue jing’” 《樂緯》與《樂經》, Zhongguo shehui kexue bao (July 28, 2010; preserved at www.chinanews.com/cul/2010/07–28/2430958.shtml, accessed on December 9, 2021); Fu Linpeng and Cao Shenggao, “Cong yuejiao chuantong lun ‘Yue jing’ zhi xingcheng yu canyi,” 141–46; Fu Linpeng, “‘Yue jing’ cunyi shuo xintan” 《樂經》存佚說新探, Zhongguo shehui kexue xuebao (May 8, 2013; preserved at http://sscp.cssn.cn/xkpd/ysx_20173/201305/t20130508_1122969.html, accessed on December 9, 2021); Xing Wen, “Taigu zhi sheng,” 16; and Yuan Jianjun, “Xiandai xin rujia Xiong Shili de yinyue sixiang tanxi.”
77. Li Tingting, “‘Yue jing’ kaolun,” 174. Later, Qi Shaonan 齊召南 (1703–1768) would also register his dissatisfaction with this theory; see Wang Qizhou, “‘Yue jing’ shenmi,” 84.
78. Li Tingting, “‘Yue jing’ kaolun,” 173–74 and Tian Jun, “Lidai ‘Yue jing’ lunshuo liupai kao,” 34. Huang Zuo’s comments are preserved in Jingyi kao, 167.2a and Zhu Yizun’s statements can be found in Jingyi kao, 167.2b–3a.
79. Han shu, 30.1712. Li Tingting, “‘Yue jing’ kaolun,” 173–74 makes the same point and identifies numerous other discrepancies with this account. Yutong, Zhou, Zhongguo jingxueshi jiangyi 中國經學史講義 (Shanghai: Shanghai wenyi, 1999), 22Google Scholar also gives this theory short shrift.
80. Fan Wenlan, for example, would follow his teacher Huang Kan 黃侃 (1886–1935) in supporting the view that the Classic of Music was preserved in the “Dasiyue”; see Yuan Jianjun, “Xiandai xin rujia Xiong Shili de yinyue sixiang tanxi,” 4. Currently, the most active proponent of this theory is Tian Jun 田君; see his “‘Yue jing’ niandaixue yanjiu” 《樂經》年代學研究, Nanjing yishu xueyuan xuebao 2013.3, 59–62+92 and “‘Yue jing’ kaoyi.”
81. Several of these proposals have been combined to form hybrid theories. According to Zhu Yizun, for example, Zhang Ruyu believed that the “Yue ji” and “Dasiyue” texts were all that remained in early Han of pre-Qin music (Jingyi kao, 167.1b), and later Huang Zuo expressed his belief that the contents of the Classic of Music were distributed among multiple texts, including the Zhou li, the Shang shu, the Shi jing, and the Chun qiu (Jingyi kao, 167.2a), while Sun Qifeng 孫奇逢 (1584–1675) believed that they were preserved in the Shi jing and the Li ji (Tian Jun, “Lidai ‘Yue jing’ lunshuo liupai kao,” 35). In the Qing, Fang Guancheng 方觀承 (1698–1768) believed that though the scores of the Classic of Music had been lost, much of its contents had been preserved in the Zhou li, Li ji, and Shi jing (Wang Qizhou, “‘Yue jing’ shenmi,” 86), while Shao Yichen, who claimed that a classic music text as such had never existed, averred that ancient musical “principles” (yuan 原) had been preserved in the Shi jing, while musical “practice” (yong 用) had been preserved in the Li ji (Liu Quanzhi, “Lun ‘Yue jing’ de jiben xingtai ji qi zai zhanguo de chuanbo,” 83). The editors of the Siku quanshu zongmu tiyao also state that the “outlines” (gangmu 綱目) of musical performance are preserved in the Li ji, while the songs and words are preserved in the Shi jing, with there never having been a separate text of the Classic of Music; see Siku quanshu zongmu tiyao, 38.627. More recently, Xie Bingjun 謝炳軍, “‘Yue jing’ san er wei wang”《樂經》散而未亡, Zhongguo yinyuexue 2015.3, 31–37, has argued that over time the contents of the Classic of Music (which he contends was a written text containing information on poems and songs, musical performance, dances, and dance props) became dispersed between different texts, including the Shi jing, the Zuo zhuan, the Guo yu, the “Yue ji,” and other parts of the three ritual classics.
82. According to Zhu Yizun, those who associated the loss of a music classic with the Qin destruction of classical learning included Zhang Ruyu in the Song and Xu Shizeng in the Ming (Jingyi kao, 167.1b, 2b). Zhu also attributed the belief that the Classic of Music had been “eradicated” (miejue 滅絕) to Yang Jisheng 楊繼盛 (1516–1555), though it is unclear precisely when or how Yang believed that this had happened (Jingyi kao, 167.2b). Modern scholars who subscribe to the theory that some sort of music class was lost in the Qin include Xia Chuancai, Shisan jing jiangzuo, 10–11 and Zhang Fang 張放, “Lun ‘Yue ji’ dui ‘Yue jing’ de tidai” 論《樂記》對《樂經》 的替代, Lishi lunheng 2013.12, 5–12.
83. See, for example, Jens Østergård Petersen, “Which Books Did the First Emperor of Ch’in Burn? On the Meaning of Pai Chia in Early Chinese Sources,” Monumenta Serica 43 (1995), 1–52; Martin Kern, The Stele Inscriptions of Ch’in Shih-huang: Text and Ritual in Early Chinese Imperial Representation (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 2000), 183–96; and Nylan, The Five “Confucian” Classics, 29–30. See also Nie Linxiao, “‘Yue ben wujing,” 60.
84. See Deng Ansheng, “Lun ‘Liuyi’ yu ‘Liujing,’” 2, and Wang Zhengeng 王鎮庚, “Sheng cheng wen wei zhi yin” 聲成文謂之音, Zhongguo chuantong yinyue zhaji 1988.3, 73.
85. Jia Yi 賈誼, Xinshu jiaozhu 新書校注 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2000), 1.14; Han shu, 13.364, 28B.1641, 30.1701; and Ying Shao 應劭, Fengsu tongyi 風俗通義 (Taipei: Taiwan Zhonghua, 1965), 1.6b.
86. Sima Qian 司馬遷, Shi ji 史記 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1959), 6.280, 48.1963; Xinshu jiaozhu, 1.2; and Han shu, 31.1823.
87. Shi ji, 28.1371, 108.3086, 121.3116, 130.3319; Liu Xin’s “Letter Regarding the Academicians” (Yishu taichang boshi 移書太常博士) preserved in Han shu, 36.1967–68; Han shu, 25A.1205, 27C.1472, 36.1968, 45.2171, 62.2723, 88.3592, 99B. 4194; Lun heng jiaoshi 論衡校釋, ed. Huang Hui 黃暉 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1990), 7.354, 12.556, 20.865, 28, 1124, 1158–59; Shuo wen jiezi biaodian zhengli ben 說文解字標點整理本, ed. Wang Ping 王平 and Li Jianting 李建廷 (Shanghai: Shanghai shudian, 2016), 395; and the preface to Zhao Qi’s 趙岐 (108–201 c.e.) Mengzi commentary in Mengzi zhengyi 孟子正義, ed. Jiao Xun 焦循 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1987), 1.16.
88. Shi ji, 15.686.
89. This claim is made numerous times in the Zhao Zheng shu 趙正書 from the looted Peking University manuscript corpus; see Beijing daxue cang Xi-Han zhushu [san] 北京大學藏西漢竹書 [叁], ed. Beijing daxue chutu wenxian yanjiusuo (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2015), 191, 193.
90. Shi ji, 121.3116; Han shu, 88.3592, 100B.4244.
91. Han shu, 56.2526, 100B.4265.
92. Ban Gu is surely being hyperbolic when he states that in early Han the Zhou Yi alone had survived the Qin book burning; see Han shu, 36.1968. In any case, a music classic is never singled out for discussion or even mentioned as part of these discussions.
93. Han shu, 22.1043, 30.1712.
94. Han shu, 22.1043.
95. For the idea that the Qin were, in many ways, custodians of traditional Zhou cultural models rather than denigrators of classical learning, see Kern, The Stele Inscriptions of Ch’in Shih-huang. Later sources like the “Shengyin” 聲音 chapter of the Fengsu tongyi 風俗通義 tend to associate the Qin more strongly with the loss of musical knowledge (Fengsu tongyi, 6.1a), yet nowhere is it claimed that a classic music text was ever lost. Indeed, in the Qing, Zhu Yizun was only able to include Ying Shao 應劭 (d. c. 200 c.e.) in his list of scholars who had expressed regret at the loss of a music classic by seriously distorting and overinterpreting his statements on music (Jingyi kao, 167.1a).
96. Shen Yue 沈約, Song shu 宋書 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1974), 19.533. The chapter goes on to retell the story of Mr. Zhi struggling to reconstruct pre-Qin musical knowledge. Tian Jun, “Lidai ‘Yue jing’ lunshuo liupai kao,” 32, takes this to mean that Shen Yue believed that the Classic of Music originally consisted of statements about music. The “Yinyue zhi” 音樂志 chapter of the Sui shu 隋書 also associates Shen Yue with the claim that the Classic of Music had “perished” (canwang 殘亡) as a result of the Qin “eradication of learning” (miexue 滅學); see Wei Zheng 魏徵, Sui shu 隋書 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1973), 13.288.
97. Liu Xie 劉勰, Wenxin dialong yizheng 文心雕龍義證 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 1989), 2.232. This statement is followed by a brief description of early Han efforts to reconstruct pre-Qin music, with Mr. Zhi recording the sounds, Shusun Tong establishing the dances, blind music masters tuning the instruments, and gentlemen correcting the texts. Tian Jun, “Lidai ‘Yue jing’ lunshuo liupai kao,” 32, takes this to mean that Liu Xie believed that Classic of Music originally consisted of tunes, dances, information on the use of musical instruments, and passages related to musical thought.
98. Wei Shou 魏收, Wei shu 魏書 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1974), 109.2826.
99. References in Hou Han shu 後漢書 to Qin burning texts of the Six Classics may be earlier than the examples cited above, but it is unclear a) whether music is one of the classics in question, and b) whether these are references to classic texts or classic textual categories (see below). The “Tianwen” 天文 chapter of the Hou Han shu, for example, claims that Qin reduced texts in the category of the Six Classics to ashes 六經典籍，殘為灰炭, but stops short of crediting Qin with the destruction of a music classic; see Fan Ye 范曄, Hou Han shu 後漢書 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1965), 3214 (zhi 志 10). A similar claim is made in Hou Han shu, 35.1212; at no point in these discussions, however, is a music classic singled out or even mentioned.
100. As Deng Ansheng, “Lun ‘Liuyi’ yu ‘Liujing,’” 2, has pointed out, despite the widespread assumption that it was universally accepted in the Han that a music classic had been lost in the Qin book burning, none of the leading scholars of either Western or Eastern Han including Dong Zhongshu 董仲舒 (179–104 b.c.e.), Kong Anguo 孔安國 (fl. late second century b.c.e.), Sima Qian, Liu Xiang, Liu Xin, or Zheng Xuan 鄭玄 (127–200 c.e.) ever mentioned the loss of any such text.
101. See, for example, the bald statement in the eighth-century Chuxue ji 初學記 that “in antiquity the Changes, Documents, Odes, Rituals, Music, and Spring and Autumn Annals constituted the Six Classics. With the Qin burning of the books the Classic of Music was destroyed. Now, the Five Classics are the Changes, Odes, Documents, Rituals, and Spring and Autumn Annals” (古者以易、書、詩、禮、樂、春秋為六經, 至秦焚書, 樂經亡。今以易、詩、書、禮、春秋為五經); see Xu Jian 徐堅, Chuxue ji, 2nd ed. (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2004), 21.497.
102. It was widely believed in the Han that music had suffered as part of a general cultural and political malaise that developed over the course of the Zhou dynasty, especially during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States eras, long before the Qin unification; see, for example, Shi ji, 23.1159, 28.1358, 47.1911, 130. 3295; Yantie lun jiaozhu 鹽鐵論校注, ed. Wang Liqi 王利器 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1992), 4.242; Han shu, 25A.1194, 28A.1542, 36.1968, 62.2716, 88.3589, 92.3697; and Fengsu tongyi, 6.1a. The preface (“xu” 序) to the Shuo wen jiezi 說文解字 talks of a loss of texts (dianji 典籍) related to ritual and music during this time (Shuo wen jiezi biaodian zhengli ben, 15.395), but there is no mention of a music classic.
103. On this point, see Zhao Limeng 趙麗萌, “Fenshu dui liujing chuancheng de yingxiang” 焚書對六經傳承的影響, Yueyang zhiye jishu xueyuan xuebao 31.4 (2016), 104 and Tian Jun, “‘Yue jing’ de xingzhi yu wangyi xintan” 《樂經》的性質與亡佚新探, Nanjing yishu xueyuan xuebao 2010.1, 25. Indeed, already in the Ming, Han Bangqi 韓邦奇 (1479–1556) had argued that the written text of the Classic of Music had been done away with during the Spring and Autumn era by the regional lords who wished to challenge Zhou hegemony; see Tian Jun, “Lidai ‘Yue jing’ lunshuo liupai kao,” 32. Similarly, in the Qing, Zhu Zaiyu explicitly stated that the loss of the Classic of Music had to do with the prior corruption of good music by vulgar (su 俗) tunes, meaning Qin could not be held responsible for the text’s disappearance (Jingyi kao, 167.2b). Liu Quanzhi, “Lun ‘Yue jing’ de jiben xingtai ji qi zai zhanguo de chuanbo,” 82–92 also doubts the theory that the Classic of Music alone was lost in the Qin book burning.
104. Xinyu jiaozhu 新語校注, ed. Wang Liqi 王利器 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1986), 2.142 and Fengsu tongyi, 7.1b.
105. The “Benxing jie” 本性解 chapter of the Kongzi jiayu 孔子家語 talks of Confucius ordering (li) music in the context of a discussion of how the texts of the ancient kings were in disarray. It is unclear, however, if the passage is talking about a classic music text, a genre of texts, or sections and movements of musical pieces; see Kongzi jiayu shuzheng 孔子家語疏證, ed. Chen Shike 陳士珂 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 1987), 9.236.
106. In the Huainanzi 淮南子 we are told that Confucius and Mozi “penetrated discussions of the Six Arts and orally pronounced on them” (通六藝之論，口道其言); see Huainanzi jishi 淮南子集釋, ed. He Ning 何寧 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1998), 9.674.
107. Han shu, 88.3589.
108. Han shu, 100B.4244.
109. Shi ji, 27.1343.
110. Shi ji, 28.1363.
111. Shi ji, 47.1914, 121.3115, 130.3310; Shuoyuan jiaozheng 說苑校證, ed. Xiang Zong 向宗 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1987), 17.421; Han shu, 28B.1662, 30.1746.
112. Scholars who have noticed that rituals and/or music seem to have been practices for Confucius rather than written texts, include Honda Shigeyuki, Zhongguo jingxueshi, 52–54; Zhu Ziqing, Shi yan zhi bian, 156; and Wang Baoxuan, Xi-Han jingxue yuanliu, 33–34. Despite this, Fu Linpeng and Cao Shenggao, “Cong yuejiao chuantong lun ‘Yue jing’ zhi xingcheng yu canyi,” 143 find it plausible that Confucius edited some sort of classic music text.
113. See Shuo wen jiezi biaodian zhengli ben, 395.
114. See Shuo wen jiezi biaodian zhengli ben, 396.
115. Hou Han shu, 44.1500.
116. See, for example, Shi ji, 47.1936 and 121.3115; numerous chapters of the Li ji, particularly the “Zhongni yan ju” 仲尼燕居 and “Kongzi xian ju” 孔子閒居 (Li ji xunzuan, 28.745–56); Kongzi jiayu shuzheng, 5.165, 8.226–31; and Han shu, 22.1042, 36.1968, 88.3589.
117. Shi ji, 47.1936–37.
118. For a study of early Chinese stories about music masters, see Milburn, Olivia, “The Blind Instructing the Sighted: Representations of Music Master Kuang in Early Chinese Texts,” Monumenta Serica 66.2 (2018), 253–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
119. For overviews of some of the musical instruments found in early Chinese tombs, see Falkenhausen, Lothar von, Suspended Music: The Chime-Bells of the Chinese Bronze Age (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993)Google Scholar and Furniss, Ingrid, Music in Ancient China: An Archaeological and Art Historical Study of Strings, Winds, and Drums during the Eastern Zhou and Han periods (770 BCE–220 CE) (Amherst, NY: Cambria Press, 2008)Google Scholar.
120. See Han shu, 6.159, 19A.726, 36.1967, 88.3620. Several scholars have cast doubt on this event, however; see Fukui Shigemasa 福井重雅, “Rokukei rokugei to gokei: kandai ni okeru gokei no seiritsu” 六經六藝と五經:漢代における五經の成立, Chūgoku shigaku 4 (1994), 139–64 and Griet Vankeerberghen, “Texts and Authors in the Shi ji,” 469.
121. See, for example, Pi Xirui 皮錫瑞, Jingxue lishi 經學歷史 (Taipei: Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, 1968), n.p.
122. See, for example, Han shu, 36.1929. Yan Kejun’s (1762–1843) Quan Hou Han wen 全後漢文 contains a proposal by Ma Fang 馬防 (d. 101 c.e.) entitled “Zou shang yingqi yue” 奏上迎氣樂 in which Ma quotes from a Classic of Music; see Quan Hou Han wen, in Quan Shanggu Sandai Qin—Han Sanguo Liuchao wen 全上古三代秦漢三國六朝文 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1958), vol. 1, 17.1126. This proposal was originally preserved in a discussion by Xue Ying 薛瑩 (d. 282 c.e.) that is quoted in Liu Zhao’s 劉昭 (fl. first half of the sixth century c.e.) commentary to the “Lüli zhi” 律曆志 chapter of Sima Biao’s 司馬彪 (d. 306 c.e.) Xu Han shu 續漢書, whose treatises (zhi 志) were later incorporated into Fan Ye’s 范曄 (d. c. 445 c.e.) Hou Han shu. Given this tortuous transmission history, the reliability of this supposed quotation is decidedly uncertain. Tian Jun, “‘Yue jing’ buzuo shi kao”《樂經》補作史考, Huangzhong (Wuhan yinyue xueyuan xuebao) 2009.4, 150–51 discusses the supposed Classic of Music quotations contained in Liu Zhao’s commentary and other texts, including a possible candidate preserved in Jia Gongyan’s 賈公彥 (dates unknown) Tang 唐 (618–907) commentary to the Zhou li (Zhou li Zhengyi, 80.3352). Tian contends that in at least one case, the quotation in question indeed derives from the original pre-Qin Classic of Music, but this is the spurious citation preserved in the fragmentary Dazhuan commentary to the Shang shu mentioned above. Li Tingting, “‘Yue jing’ kaolun,” 175–78 refutes the various citations in later texts that seem to derive from the “original” Classic of Music.
123. For the debates about the dating and authenticity of this chapter, see Martin Kern, “A Note on the Authenticity and Ideology of Shih-chi 24, ‘The Book on Music,’” Journal of the American Oriental Society 119.4 (1999), 673–77 and Hans van Ess, “Some Preliminary Notes on the Authenticity of the Treatise on Music in Shih-chi 24,” Oriens Extremus 45 (2005–06), 48–67.
124. On the “Yue ji,” see Brindley, Music, Cosmology, and the Politics of Harmony in Early China, 19–20, 75, 112–16, 131. For a translation and study, see Cook, “Yue Ji—Record of Music.”
125. In the Yi li there are numerous references to the activities and performances of music masters (yuezheng 樂正) but no mention of a music classic.
126. As Avital Rom has pointed out, though the text does not contain a chapter dedicated to the subject, not a single chapter of the Huainanzi is without some sort of reference to music. See Rom, “Echoing Rulership,” 127.
127. The editors of the only complete English translation of the Huainanzi nevertheless take several mentions of music as references to some sort of classic music text, characterizing it as “[a] Confucian canonical text lost since ancient times”; see John S. Major, Sarah A. Queen, Andrew Seth Meyer, and Harold D. Roth, trans. and eds., The Huainanzi: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Government in Early Han China (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010), 569, 807 n. 32, 808 (quotation at 808 n. 34). However, as with the pre-Qin passages examined above, there is no justification for interpreting these passages as referring to a classic text on music.
128. Fayan yishu 法言義疏, ed. Wang Rongbao 王榮寶 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1987), 5.169.
129. Preserved in Han shu, 36.1967–68 and Quan Hanwen 全漢文, in Quan Shanggu Sandai Qin–Han Sanguo Liuchao wen, vol. 1, 40.695.
130. See Han shu, 21A.955–21B.1026.
131. See Han shu, 22.1027–78.
132. Sun Zhentian and Fan Chunyi, “Cong ‘Han zhi’ kan ‘Yue jing’ wei ‘liudai yuewu’ shuo zhi chengli,” 45–47 argue that of the music texts catalogued in “Yiwen zhi,” only the “Yue ji” and “Wang Yu ji” 王禹記 were originally scheduled for inclusion, and that the remaining entries for texts containing songs, poems, and possibly musical scores were only included to make up the numbers. For a thorough overview of the different types of musical texts compiled in the Western and Eastern Han, see Yu Zuosheng 余作勝, “Liang-Han yueshu de wenxianxue yanjiu” 兩漢樂書的文獻學研究 (Ph.D. dissertation, Sichuan shifan daxue, 2012).
133. The assumption that Ban Gu must have believed Qin was responsible for the destruction of a classic music text has led several scholars to read such statements into the “Yiwen zhi” when they are simply not there. See, for example, Yue Yin 岳音, “Duochong yinsu zhi ‘Yue jing’ wangyi” 多重因素致《樂經》亡佚, Zhongguo shehui kexuebao (December 18, 2018; preserved at www.cssn.cn/lsx/lskj/201812/t20181218_4794970.shtml, accessed on December 9, 2021) and Zhang Wanxia 張晚霞, “‘Zhizhai shulu jieti’ quxiao ‘jingbu’ ‘yue lei’ boyi—cong gudian muluxue chuantong kan yinyue wenxian de fenlei yu zhulu” 《直齊書錄解題》取消 “經部” “樂類”駁議—從古典目錄學傳統看音樂文獻的分類與著錄, Jiaoxiang—Xi’an yinyue xueyuan xuebao 2014.3, 25. See also Shan Jia 山佳, “Liujing you ci cheng wanbi—shichuan ‘Yue jing’ chongxian Xi’an” 六經有此稱完璧—失傳《樂經》重現西安, Shoucang 2011.8, 84–85 and Nie Linxiao, “Yue ben wujing,” 61, who claim that Ban Gu was the first to raise the question of a missing music classic based on a supposed fragment of the Bohu tong 白虎通 that is preserved only in the Taiping yulan 太平御覽 compiled in the second half of the tenth century c.e.; see Li Fang 李昉, Taiping yulan (Sibu congkan ed., 5th ed.; Taipei: Taiwan shangwu, 1992), 608.1a. Nie Linxiao himself admits, however, that it is hard to tell whether this quotation is a lost fragment or merely a fabrication (62 n. 31).
134. Curiously, scholars have tended to overlook the total absence of a Classic of Music from the “Yiwen zhi” account of music. A notable exception is Qiu Qiongsun, Lidai Yue zhi lü zhi jiaoshi, 1, where in the very first sentence Qiu emphasizes that the “Yiwen zhi” passage talks of pre-Qin music only in terms of sound and performance and never in terms of a classic text. The fact that the “Yiwen zhi” makes no mention of a music classic has led Sun Zhentian and Fan Chunyi to conclude that there is likewise no obligation to understand references to music in the Zhuangzi, Xunzi, Li ji, and Guodian manuscripts as references to written texts. As they point out, this does not mean that musical knowledge was never committed to writing, just that these passages do not privilege textuality in their discussions of music; see Sun Zhentian and Fan Chunyi, “Cong ‘Han zhi’ kan ‘Yue jing’ wei ‘liudai yuewu’ shuo zhi chengli,” 41–45.
135. Han shu, 30.1711–12. Wang Baoxuan, Xi-Han jingxue yuanliu, 32, points out that Yan Shigu’s 顏師古 (581–645 c.e.) commentary on this passage specifies that music could not be “completely put into writing” (不可具於書); see Han shu, 30.1712. See also Sun Zhentian and Fan Chunyi, “Cong ‘Han zhi’ kan ‘Yue jing’ wei ‘liudai yuewu’ shuo zhi chengli,” 45. The same chapter talks of “many texts in the Six Arts” (六藝群書) (Han shu, 30.1721), but this seems to be a reference to written texts in the categories of the Six Arts rather than to six classic texts (see below for more on this topic). The “Chu yuan wang zhuan” 楚元王傳 chapter of the Han shu, for example, also has Liu Xin “collecting many texts in the Six Arts” 集六藝群書 (Han shu 36.1967). The same phrase appears in Han shu, 64B.2821, where it must be interpreted as a reference to texts in those six categories rather than to six classic texts given that the passage in question is talking about classical learning in Han times.
136. Later in the “Yiwen zhi,” Ban Gu talks about Six Classics in ancient times and Five Classics (wujing) in his own time, without ever explaining the discrepancy between the differently numbered sets (Han shu, 30.1728). Later in the same chapter, however, Ban Gu also talks of Six Classics in his own time (Han shu, 30.1746). To my mind, these apparent discrepancies can only be explained by a belief on Ban Gu’s part that six classic categories of learning (only ever centered on five classic texts) were still in operation in his own time in much the same way as they had been since the time of Confucius. In Han shu, 75.3172, music is listed as one of Six Classics, but nothing about the way it is described suggests that Ban Gu conceived of music as a “classic” (jing) in textual terms (more on this below).
137. See, for example, Nie Linxiao, “Yue ben wujing,” 61.
138. There is talk in this chapter about the musical practices followed by a new dynasty, and why some dynasties choose to follow older musical forms at the expense of more recent material, but the focus is consistently placed on musical knowledge and performance rather than on music texts.
139. See Bohu tong shuzheng 白虎通疏證, ed. Chen Li 陳立 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1994), 9.444–50. In the previously mentioned Taiping yulan passage, an attempt is made to explain the discrepancy in the Bohu tong by drawing on the argument, well-worn by the time of the Taiping yulan’s compilation, that the Classic of Music had been destroyed in the Qin book burning, a claim that does not appear in the Bohu tong itself.
140. See Hou Han shu, 35.1199–1200.
141. At the very end of the “Wujing” chapter, there is a reference to texts on ritual and music having been “eradicated” (chu 除) (Bohu tong shuzheng, 9.449–50), an apparent allusion to a legend that Confucius discovered documents totaling 3,240 pian that belonged to the Yellow Emperor’s great-great-grandson. According to this tradition, Confucius set aside 3,120 pian, incorporating 102 pian into the Shang shu and 18 pian into a text titled Shang shu zhonghou 尚書中侯. Though this could be interpreted as a possible attempt to explain what had happened to a lost music classic, I find it strange that this comment concludes a passage dedicated to historical records and written documents and was not included in the earlier discussion of classical music and rituals. Furthermore, it seems odd that Confucius would be credited with the destruction (rather than the sponsorship) of a classic music text.
142. Lun heng jiaoshi, 20.860–70.
143. Lun heng jiaoshi, 28.1123–48.
144. Lun heng jiaoshi, 28.1158–59. Immediately after this statement there is a passage in which music is included alongside the Changes, Odes, and Rituals as part of four classics (jing), each of which is said to have required some sort of event to occur or condition to be satisfied before they could be put into writing (pianzhang 篇章). In the case of music, this condition is “unhappiness” (buhuan 不歡). However, though music is associated with written texts, this passage must surely be talking about a category of musical texts rather than a Classic of Music per se, since elsewhere Wang Chong steadfastly refuses to talk about any such work.
145. In the “Bietong” 別通 chapter of the Lun heng and elsewhere Wang Chong talks of just Five Classics in the Han (Lun heng jiaoshi, 13.590–605), but in the “Qiangao” 譴告 chapter Wang Chong talks of “the texts of the Six Classics and the words of the sages” 六經之文，聖人之語 in his own time (Lun heng jiaoshi, 14.647). In the “Shizhi” 實知 chapter of the Lun heng, Wang Chong again talks of Six Arts and Five Classics available in Wang Mang’s 王莽 (45 b.c.e.–23 c.e.) time (Lun heng jiaoshi, 26.1077).
146. See Cai Yong 蔡邕, Du duan 獨斷 (Taipei: Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, 1965).
147. Again, the total absence of references to a music classic in texts from the Qin-Han transition, Western Han, or Eastern Han is but rarely raised by scholars. Yet again, a notable exception is Deng Ansheng, “Lun ‘Liuyi’ yu ‘Liujing,’” 3–4, who likewise thinks it odd that such a text is never mentioned in the Shi ji, the “Yue ji” chapter of the Li ji, or the “Yiwen zhi,” or “Rulin zhuan” 儒林傳 chapters of the Han shu.
148. Nylan, The Chinese Pleasure Book, 81–82. A music classic is never said to have numbered among the texts supposedly discovered in the walls of Confucius’ home, for example, nor was a redaction of the text ever presented at court. Despite this, DeWoskin, Kenneth J., A Song for One or Two: Music and the Concept of Art in Early China (Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, the University of Michigan, 1982), 16, 91Google Scholar and Henderson, John B., Scripture, Canon, and Commentary: A Comparison of Confucian and Western Exegesis (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 199), 40CrossRefGoogle Scholar claim that the “Yue ji” was compiled in the Han as an attempt to reconstruct a lost Classic of Music, a claim for which there is no evidence. See also Zhang Fang, “Lun ‘Yue ji’ dui ‘Yue jing’ de tidai,” 7–10; Zhang Shunhui 張舜徽, Han shu Yiwen zhi tongshi 漢書藝文志通釋 (Wuhan: Hubei jiaoyu, 1990), 218; Zhou Guolin, “Liujing cixu ji qi youguan wenti,” 156; and Tian Jun, “‘Yue jing’ de xingzhi yu wangyi xintan,” 24 who likewise argue that the “Yue ji” was written as a sort of commentary on the lost Classic of Music. For useful overviews of later attempts (both imperially sponsored and private projects) from Han through Qing to compile and curate texts under various titles, many of which were evidently intended to replace what was taken to have been a lost Classic of Music, see Li Tingting, “‘Yue jing’ kaolun,” 175; Tian Jun, “‘Yue jing’ buzuo shi kao”; and Xu Zaiyang, “Chen Yang jiqi ‘Yue shu’ yanjiu Zhong de yixie wenti.”
149. The “Wang Mang zhuan” 王莽傳 chapter of the Han shu talks of Wang Mang establishing (li 立) a Classic of Music (Han shu, 99A.4069), and goes on to describe how libationers (jijiu 祭酒) were appointed for the Six Classics, including music (Han shu, 99B.4126–27). In the “Chaoqi” 超奇 chapter of the Lun heng, Wang Chong states that Yangcheng Zizhang 陽成子長 (sometimes rendered as 陽成子張) created (zuo 作) a Classic of Music (Lun heng jiaoshi, 13.608), a claim that is repeated almost verbatim in the “Duizuo” 對作 chapter of the same text (Lun heng jiaoshi, 29.1182). Yangcheng Zizhang was the style name of Yangcheng Heng 陽成衡, who was appointed a libationer during Wang Mang’s reign, and it seems that the Classic of Music established by Wang Mang was Yangcheng’s creation. Thus, some of the references to Six Classics during Wang Mang’s reign may be to Five Classics plus the new music classic. Certainly, it is never claimed that Yangcheng restored or rediscovered a missing music text, and we would surely expect this otherwise obscure figure to have achieved fame and fortune if that had been the case. In the Qing, Zhu Yizun mistakenly believed that the Classic of Music established by Wang Mang was a different text from that compiled by Yangcheng Heng, the former being the “original” pre-Qin Classic of Music as preserved in the “Dasiyue” and the latter being an imitation of that classic. For a discussion of Zhu’s comments on the subject, see Yu Zuosheng, “Liang-Han yueshu de wenxianxue yanjiu,” 61. Wang Qizhou 王齊洲, “Guwen jingxue de fasheng yu ‘Yue jing’ de chengli” 古文經學的發生與《樂經》的成立, Shehui kexue wenzhai 2020.2, 106–8 doubts that the text was forged by Wang Mang, given what seems to have been a genuine commitment on his part to classical learning.
150. Luo Yifeng, “You ‘Yue wei’ de yanjiu yinshen dao ‘Yue jing’ yu ‘Yue ji’ de wenti” and Sun Rongrong, Yue wei’ yu ‘Yue jing’” have argued that the apocryphal music texts seem to treat the “Yue ji” as a sort of classic (jing). Though this may be true, it does not prove that whoever compiled those apocryphal texts believed that the “Yue ji” was the Classic of Music, nor that such a text had ever existed.
151. Han shu, 75.3179 talks of Five Classics and Six Wefts (wujing liuwei 五經六緯), while part of Ban Gu’s aim in compiling the Han shu was to be a sort of weft to the Six Classics 緯六經 (Han shu, 100B.4271).
152. In the “Liyue zhi” chapter of the Han shu, for example, Liu De 劉德 (d. 130 or 129 b.c.e.) is said to have collected texts on ritual and music (Han shu, 22.1035). Elsewhere in the Han shu we are told that Liu An 劉安 (d. 122 b.c.e.) collected pre-Qin editions of ancient texts as well as related commentaries and explanations, and that his scholarship upheld (ju 舉) the Six Arts. The only reference to music in this passage, however, is to cultivating (xiu 修) ritual and music, suggesting that Liu An was able to patronize the Six Arts (including music) perfectly well without sponsoring any sort of music classic; see Han shu, 53.2410.
153. Xinshu jiaozhu, 8.316.
154. Xinshu jiaozhu, 8.327–28.
155. Shi ji, 130.3310. Deng Ansheng, “Lun ‘Liuyi’ yu ‘Liujing,’” 4–8 also notes that the Six Classics and Six Arts appear throughout Shi ji and Han shu as extant categories of learning even though only texts of the Five Classics were available in Sima Qian’s and Ban Gu’s lifetimes. For just a few of the references in Han texts to music, the Six Classics, and the Six Arts as extant categories of classical learning, see Xinyu jiaozhu, 1.30, Huainanzi jishi, 14.1036, 20.1393; Shi ji, 24.1179, 126.3197, 130.3297; Li ji xunzuan, 26.736–37; Kongzi jiayu shuzheng, 8.233–35; Liu Xiang 劉向, Zhanguo ce 戰國策 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 1985), 19.656; and Han shu, 56.2495–528, 62.2717, 65.2856, 66.2903, 81.3337.
156. In the “Sima Qian zhuan” 司馬遷傳 chapter of the Han shu, for instance, Ban Gu criticizes Sima Qian for “giving priority to Huang-Lao and neglecting the Six Classics” (先黃老而後六經); see Han shu, 62.2738.
157. In the “Cifu” 刺復 chapter of the Yantie lun 鹽鐵論, for instance, we read of worthy gentleman and accomplished scholars “embracing the techniques of the Six Arts” (懷六藝之術) in the Han; see Yantie lun jiaozhu, 2.130. See also Yantie lun jiaozhu, 1.79, 10.613; Shi ji, 47.1947; and Han shu, 94B.3812.
158. See Shi ji, 28.1382. This record also appears in the “Jiaosi zhi” 郊祀志 chapter of the Han shu; see Han shu, 25A.1214. Later in that chapter, however, we read of the “model sayings of the Five Classics” (五經之法言) (Han shu, 25B.1260). Similarly, in one of the poems preserved in the “Yang Xiong zhuan” 揚雄傳 chapter of the Han shu, we read of Six Classics (Han shu, 87A.3539–40), though later in the same chapter there are only five (Han shu, 87B.3575).
159. See Huan Tan 桓譚, Xin jiben Huan Tan Xinlun 新輯本桓譚新論 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2009), 10.43.
160. Han shu, 88.3589.
161. Han shu, 88.3592. See also the parallel passage in Shi ji, 121.3116.
162. The rest of the chapter goes on to talk about five classic texts with no explanation for this apparent discrepancy. The “Xu zhuan” chapter of the Han shu, for example, relates Confucius’ correction (zheng) of music to the establishment of the Six Curricula (liuxue), curricula which then suffered in the Qin and had to be restored in Han. But again, there is no mention of a music text ever having existed. See Han shu, 100B.4244. Indeed, the same chapter talks both of Five Classics (Han shu, 100B.4235) and Six Curricula (Han shu, 100B.4237) in the Han. These references could be taken to reflect a belief that a music classic had once existed but was later lost, though, as we have seen, in the “Yiwen zhi” chapter (the passage to which the statements relating Confucius’ correction of music to the establishment of the Six Curricula serve as commentary), music is the only one of the Six Art not to be associated with pre-Qin texts.
163. Han shu, 6.159. The same statement is also made at Han shu, 19A.726.
164. Han shu, 6.212. Bizarrely, Yang Sai 楊賽, “Yue jing shichuan yuanyin tanjiu” 樂經失傳原因探究, Gehai 2010.3, 4–6 argues that passages such as these indicate that a classic music text survived the Qin book burning to be available during Emperor Wu’s reign. Indeed, according to Yang, it was Emperor Wu’s failure to create an erudite post for the Classic of Music that led to its eventual loss. The “Xuandi ji” 宣帝紀 chapter of the Han shu talks of Six Arts as objects of study in Han times (Han shu, 8.255), yet the same chapter goes on talk of classicists discussing their interpretations of Five Classics only (Han shu, 8.272). Han shu, 58.2633–34 likewise talks both of Five Classics and Six Arts in the Han.
165. See Hou Han shu, 59.1897, where Zhang Heng 張衡 (78–139 c.e.) is said to have “penetrated the Five Classics and connected the Six Arts” (通五經，貫六蓺). Proficiency in song and music is associated with “connecting” (guan 貫) the Six Arts during the Han in Hou Han shu, 3.131.
166. The very first sentence of the “Liyue zhi” chapter of the Han shu, for example, states that “the ways of the Six Classics return to the same point, but application of Rituals and Music is particularly urgent” (六經之道同歸，而禮樂之用為急); Han shu, 22.1027.
167. In this chapter, music and ritual are dealt with as performance traditions rather than texts, with no reference to the prior or contemporary existence of any sort of classic music text. Indeed, as late as the “Yubei” 玉杯 chapter of the Chunqiu fanlu 春秋繁露, music continues to form part of the Six Curricula with no sense that musical knowledge has been irreparably damaged as a result of textual loss; see Chun qiu fanlu yizheng 春秋繁露義證, ed. Su Yu 蘇輿 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1992), 1.35–38.
168. The fact that the terms Six Classics and Six Arts overlapped as ways of designating six classic fields of knowledge and practice is evidenced by the parallel passages in the “Tianguan shu” 天官書 and “Fengshan shu” 封禪書 chapters of the Shi ji, which credit Confucius with “arranging the Six Classics” (論六經) and “arranging and transmitting the Six Arts” (論述六藝), respectively; see Shi ji, 27.1343, 28.1363. The “Kuang Zhang Kong Ma zhuan” 匡張孔馬傳 chapter of the Han shu also talks of both Six Classics and Six Arts in operation in Han times in a way that suggests that they represent the very same extant categories of learning; see Han shu, 81.3343.
169. See, for example, Shi ji, 112,.2965, where (in a passage added by Ban Gu) Emperor Xuan 漢宣帝 (r. 74–48 b.c.e.) is said to have “discoursed on the Six Arts” (講論六藝), and the “Shanglin fu” 上林賦, which talks both of Six Arts and “traditions of the texts in the Six Classics” (六經載籍之傳) in the Han (Shi ji, 117.3041, 3064). The “Taishi gong zixu” chapter of the Shi ji has Sima Qian quoting his father Sima Tan’s 司馬談 (c. 165–110 b.c.e.) lamentation that there was nobody in his own time willing to emulate Confucius’ dedication to the Changes, Spring and Autumn Annals, Odes, Documents, Rituals, and Music, suggesting that music was still active, as it had been in Confucius’ time, as a category of classical learning (Shi ji, 130.3296). Meanwhile, the “Bianwu” 辨物 chapter of the Shuoyuan 說苑 states that “in each of the Six Classics, when a divine king manifests it never fails to cause the four spiritual beasts [the qilin, phoenix, turtle, and dragon] to appear” (凡六經帝王之所著，莫不致四靈焉); see Shuoyuan jiaozheng, 18.454. Note, however, that the Yiwen leiju 藝文類聚 (completed 624 c.e.) cites this passage without the reference to the Six Classics; see Ouyang Xun 歐陽詢 et al., Yiwen leiju 藝文類聚 (1965; rpt. Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 1985), 98.1706.
170. Shi ji, 61.2121. Note also that in this passage, only the Odes and Documents (and not music!) are said to be “defective” (que).
171. Shi ji, 130.3290. See also the parallel passage in Han shu, 62.2712. Wang Baoxuan 王葆玹, Gu jin jianzong—Liang-Han jingxue 古今兼綜—兩漢經學 (Taipei: Wanjuanlou, 2001), 6, draws on passages such as these in support of his argument that the term Six Classics refers to “the classic texts in the Six Arts” (liuyi zhi jing 六藝之經) and not to texts of the Six Classics. Indeed, we know that the Six Classics were active categories of classical learning in Sima Qian’s time because he tells us that his aim in writing the Shi ji was to “harmonize the different traditions in the Six Classics and arrange and make even the miscellaneous sayings of the hundred experts” (厥協六經異傳，整齊百家雜語); see Shi ji, 130.3319–20. See also the parallel passage in Han shu, 62.2724. The “Wang Mang zhuan” chapter of the Han shu has Wang Mang “reciting the Six Arts in order to give deviant speech patterned form” (誦六藝以文姦言) (Han shu, 99C.4194), and in the “Xu zhuan” 敘傳 chapter of the Han shu, Yang Xiong is associated with study of the Six Classics; see Han shu, 100B.4265.
172. In the “Yiwen zhi” we read about the completeness (bei 備) of the contents of the “many texts in the Six Arts” (liuyi qunshu 六藝群書) (Han shu, 30.1721), with no indication that they are defective because of a lost music classic. For further instances of this phrase, see n. 175 below. In the “Dong Zhongshu zhuan” 董仲舒傳 chapter of the Han shu, Dong Zhongshu talks of “eradicating” (jue 絕) “all that is not included in the classes of the Six Arts and the techniques of Confucius” (諸不在六藝之科孔子之術者); Han shu, 56.2523. Later in the same chapter, we are told that the Six Classics were in disarray (lixi) at the beginning of Han as a result of the Qin destruction of classical learning; see Han shu, 56.2526.
173. The “Taizu xun” 泰族訓 chapter of the Huainanzi, for example, talks of the “different classes of the Six Arts all returning to the same path” (六藝異科而皆同道) (Huainanzi jishi, 20.1392) in the present. The “Dong Zhongshu zhuan” chapter of the Han shu likewise talks of “the classes of the Six Arts and the techniques of Confucius” (六藝之科孔子之術) in the present (Han shu, 56.2523). On this point, see also Wang Baoxuan, Xi-Han jingxue yuanliu, 35–36.
174. See Shi ji, 61.2121 and Lun heng jiaoshi, 4.171.
175. The Han shu repeatedly talks of the many texts (qunshu) in the Six Arts in the present (Han shu, 30.1721, 36.1967, 64B.2821), even though the same chapters talk specifically of only Five Classics.
176. In the “Yiwen zhi” chapter of the Han shu, Ban Gu talks about “cultivating the techniques of the Six Arts” (修六藝之術) in the Han; see Han shu, 30.1746.
177. The “Gongsun Liu Tian Wang Yang Cai Chen Zheng zhuan” 公孫劉田王楊蔡陳鄭傳 chapter of the Han shu talks of “elaborating on the spirit of the Six Arts” (舒六藝之風); Han shu, 66.2903.
178. The “Kuang Heng Kong Ma zhuan” 匡張孔馬傳 chapter of the Han shu talks of both Six Classics and Six Arts in the present in a way that suggests the two terms referred to the same set of classic arts (not exclusively textual); see Han shu, 81.3343.
179. The “Yiwen zhi” summary for the Six Arts lists Music, Odes, Rituals, Documents, and Spring and Autumn Annals as five items that are complete (bei) amongst themselves, embodying “the way of the five constants” (wuchang zhi dao 五常之道) with “the Changes as their origin” (易為之原); see Han shu, 30.1723. The passage goes on to talk about the Five Curricula (wuxue 五學) in textual terms, but it is unclear if music is included in the set. The inclusion of the Lun yu, Xiaojing, and “minor learning” (xiaoxue 小學) as textual categories in the Six Arts section of the “Yiwen zhi” shows that the term Six Arts could be used to refer to a number (not always even six) of textual categories considered fundamental to classical learning.
180. Xinyu jiaozhu, 1.18.
181. Yuan Kang 袁康, Yuejue shu 越絕書, ed. Wu Ping 吳平 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 1985), 1.3. See also the “Dexu waizhuan ji” 德序外傳記 chapter of the same text, which likewise talks of “Five Classics and Six Arts” (wujing liuyi) in Confucius’ time (Yuejue shu, 14.103). This pairing of Five Classics and Six Arts as subjects of classical learning in Han times appears also in the “Zhang Heng liezhuan” 張衡列傳 chapter of the Hou Han shu (Hou Han shu, 59.1897).
182. In the Qianfu lun 潛夫論, Wang Fu 王符 (b. c. 90 c.e.) talks of giving patterned form (wen) through the use of music and ritual in classical learning; see Qianfu lun jian jiaozheng 潛夫論箋校正, ed. Wang Jipei 王繼陪 (1985; rpt. Beijing: Zhonghua, 1997), 1.3. However, the same text repeatedly talks only of Five Classics with no mention of a sixth (Qianfu lun jian jiaozheng, 2.78, 8.383, 10.465). References in Han texts to the Five Classics cannot always be explained by a belief that the Classic of Music had been lost, since many of these passages clearly speak of only Five Classics in pre-Qin times.
183. See Changsha Mawangdui Hanmu jianbo jicheng 長沙馬王堆漢墓簡帛集成, ed. Hunan sheng bowuguan and Fudan daxue chutu wenxian yu guwenzi yanjiu zhongxin (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2014), vol. 3, 119. Xing Wen, “Taigu zhi sheng,” 16, takes this passage as confirmation that a Classic of Music once existed. For a discussion of this passage, the interpretation of certain graphs, and its possible date of composition, see Wang Baoxuan, Jin gu wen jingxue xin lun, 47–52 and Liao Mingchun 廖名春, “‘Liujing’ cixu tanyuan” “六經” 次序探源, Lishi yanjiu 2 (2002), 35, 38–39.
184. Han Ying 韓嬰, Hanshi waizhuan jishi 韓詩外傳集釋 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1980), 5.164. The “Rulin zhuan” chapter of the Han shu talks of ancient classicists who were “broadly learned in the texts of the Six Arts” (博學虖六藝之文) (Han shu, 88.3589), but as the “Yiwen zhi” chapter of that text makes clear, music as an art was predominantly associated with performance in pre-Qin times, not written texts, and the “Rulin zhuan” passage most plausibly refers to texts (wen) in the categories or curricula of the Six Arts. Indeed, in the “Rulin zhuan” passage in question, discussion immediately turns to the Six Curricula.
185. The varied contents of the current Zhuangzi text likely date to different points in time during a span of several hundred years, if not more. See Esther Klein, “Were There ‘Inner Chapters’ in the Warring States? A New Examination of Evidence About the Zhuangzi,” T’oung Pao 96/4–5 (2010), 299–369. Nie Linxiao, “Yue ben wu jing,” 60, and Cook, The Bamboo Texts of Guodian, vol. 1, 128 n. 313 (citing work by Guo Qingfan 郭慶藩) note that the relevant sections of the “Tianyun” and “Tianxia” 天下 chapters have been suspected of being later interpolations. Honda Shigeyuki, Zhongguo jingxueshi, 5–6 estimates that these chapters may have been written in Eastern Han, or even later.
186. Zhuangzi jijie, Zhuangzi jijie neipian buzheng 莊子集解 莊子集解內篇補正, ed. Liu Wu 劉武 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1987), 4.130.
187. In fact, use of this term would seem to date this passage to mid-Western Han at the earliest.
188. See, for example, Xing Wen, “Taigu zhi sheng,” 16.
189. See, for example, Lewis, Mark Edward, Writing and Authority in Early China (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999), 276Google Scholar. Wang Zhengeng, “Sheng cheng wen wei zhi yin,” 73, also takes this passage as a reference to the contents of a written text.
190. Remember that the “Qinxue” chapter of the Xunzi categorizes Odes and Documents as “containing precedents yet not apposite” (gu er buqie); see Xunzi jijie, 1.14.
191. Zhuangzi jijie, Zhuangzi jijie neipian buzheng, 6.209–10.
192. Tian Jun, “‘Yue jing’ de xingzhi yu wangyi xintan,” 24–25 thinks the “Xu Wugui” passage is referring to classic written texts.
193. Zhuangzi jijie, Zhuangzi jijie neipian buzheng, 8.287–88. In addition to the doubts raised about these passages above in n. 185, see also Ma Xulun’s 馬敘倫 argument that the line in the “Tianxia” chapter describing each of the Six Classics is an ancient commentary (gu zhuwen 古注文) rather than an original part of the text. Ma’s comments are cited in Guo Qiyong 郭齊勇, “Guodian rujia jian de yiyi yu jiazhi” 郭店儒家簡的意義與價值, Hubei daxue xuebao (zhexue shehui kexue ban) 1999.2, 6.
194. For useful overviews of the meaning and uses of jing in early sources, see Nylan, Michael, “The Classics Without Canonization: Learning and Authority in Qin and Han,” in Early Chinese Religion, Part One: Shang Through Han (1250 BC–220 AD), ed. Lagerwey, John and Kalinowski, Marc (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 721–76Google Scholar; Schaberg, David, “Classics (jing 經),” in The Oxford Handbook of Classical Chinese Literature, 1000 BCE–900 CE, ed. Denecke, Wiebke, Wai-yee, Li, and Xiaofei, Tian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 170–83Google Scholar; and Wang Baoxuan 王葆玹, Jin gu wen jingxue xin lun 今古文經學新論 (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue, 1997), 31–34. Fukui Shigemasa 福井重雅 has argued that the term Five Classics (wujing) was a late Western Han invention; see Fukui Shigemasa, Kandai Jukyō no shiteki kenkyū: Jukyō no kangakuka o meguru teisetsu no saikentō 漢代儒敎の史的硏究 : 儒敎の官學化をめぐる定說の再檢討 (Tokyo: Kyūko Shoin, 2005), 149–52.
195. As noted above, Wang Baoxuan has offered a slightly different interpretation of the term, arguing that Six Classics is an abbreviated reference to the “classics in the Six Arts” (liuyi zhi jing). See Wang Baoxuan, Xi-Han jingxue yuanliu, 34–36. Wang’s hypothesis cannot, however, account for those passages in which music is listed as one of Six Classics in Han sources. To my mind, it is not a coincidence that, as Fukui Shigemasa has shown, the term Five Classics seems to have increased in popularity in late Western Han, a time when classical learning was becoming increasingly textualized. Contra Wang Baoxuan, I take the new prevalence of the term Five Classics from that time onwards as a reflection of the need to distinguish between five actual classic texts on the one hand, and six classic categories of (not always textual) learning on the other.
196. The “Zhixue” 治學 and “Yiji” 藝紀 chapters of the Zhonglun 中論 list music as part of the older set of Six Arts; see Xu Gan 徐幹, Zhonglun jiegu 中論解詁 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2014), 1.127.
197. See Wang Baoxuan, Jin gu wen jingxue xin lun, 52–57 for a discussion of arts (yi) as categories or branches (ke) of learning. It was apparently believed that the Six Arts were also “classics” (jing) in the sense of being constant and authoritative. The “Daoji” chapter of Xinyu, for example, states that “the sage prevents chaos by means of the constant or classic arts (alternatively, the classics and arts), and the artisan straightens curves by means of the level and the marking cord” (聖人防亂以經藝，工正曲以準繩) (Xinyu jiaozhu, 1.29). The “Huai lü” 懷慮 chapter of the same text also talks of “exhausting the depths of the classic arts (or the classics and arts)” 極經藝之深 (Xinyu jiaozhu, 2.137). See also the “Rulin liezhuan” chapter of the Shi ji, which talks of the many classicists starting to cultivate (xiu) the “classic arts” (jingyi) at the beginning of Han (Shi ji, 121.3117). This passage also clearly talks of rituals and other cultural practices rather than written texts. In Eastern Han, the binome jingyi seems to refer more clearly to two different types of written texts, the texts of the classics (jing) themselves and related works in the classic categories (yi); see, for example, Lun heng jiaoshi, 8.393, 12.552, 13.594, 29.1177, 30.1195. A similar situation obtains in Han shu, 25B.1255 and 99C.4149. See also Dongguan Hanji jiaozhu 東觀漢記校注, ed. Liu Zhen 劉珍 et al. (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2008), 1.9, 2.88, 12.418. In addition, near the end of the preface to the Shuo wen jiezi, Xu Shen 許慎 (fl. 100 c.e.) mentions that “written characters are the basis of the classics and arts, the origins of kingly government” 蓋文字者，經藝之本，王政之始; see Shuo wen jiezi biaodian zhengli ben, 396. See also Cai Yong 蔡邕, Cai zhonglang ji 蔡中郎集 (Sibu congkan ed.; Taipei: Taiwan Zhonghua, 1965), 1.12a (“Taiwei Qiao gong bei song” 太尉橋公碑頌), 7.22a (“Da zhao wen zai” 荅詔問災), and 8.2a (“Hexi Deng hou shi yi” 和熹鄧后謚議).
198. See, for example, Han shu, 36.1967. Though the term Five Classics became more common than Six Classics or Six Arts in Eastern Han, the latter two terms were still commonly used. See Lewis, Writing and Authority in Early China, 301.
199. This point is also made in Wang Baoxuan, Jin gu wen jingxue xin lun, 52–53 and Deng Ansheng, “Lun ‘Liuyi’ yu ‘Liujing,’” 8. For handy tables and analysis of the appearance of the terms Five Classics, Six Classics, and Six Arts in early texts, see Fukui Shigemasa, Kandai Jukyō no shiteki kenkyū, 131–88. Wang has argued that the shift from talking about Six Arts and Classics in late Warring States and Qin to talking about Five Classics in Western Han reflects the shifting beliefs about the numbers associated with different cosmological powers (de 德); see Wang Baoxuan, Xi-Han jingxue yuanliu, 36–42. The problem with this hypothesis is that the terms Six Classics and Six Arts (including the variant form 六蓺) continue to appear in late-Western and Eastern Han sources. I thus prefer to interpret the newly prevalent talk of Five Classics (in addition to the continued discourse on the Six Classics and the Six Arts) from late Western Han onwards as a reflection of the increasing prominence of written texts, and the resultant need to distinguish between a set of Five Classics (the texts of the classics themselves) and somewhat broader categories of classical learning designated by the terms Six Classics and Six Arts.
200. Cai zhonglang ji, 2.9b (“Runan Zhou Jusheng bei” 汝南周巨勝碑), 4.1a (“Taifu Anle xiang Wengong hou Hu gong bei” 太傅安樂鄉文恭侯胡公碑), waiji 外紀, 11b (“Shi hui” 釋誨); and waiji 外集 3.3b (“Bi fu” 筆賦).
201. See for example, Hou Han shu, 79B.2582, where He Xiu 何休 (129–192 c.e.) is said to have “intensively studied the Six Classics” (精研六經). For further ambiguous references to Six Classics in different contexts, see Hou Han shu, 18A.968, 40B.1361, 44.1508, 52.1706, 59.1903, 60B.1980, 62.2053, 76.2466, and 3641 (zhi 29).
202. See Chen Shou 陳壽, Sanguo zhi 三國志, 2nd ed. (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1982), 42, 1027, where Qiao Zhou 譙周 (199–270 c.e.) is similarly said to have “studied the Six Classics intensively” (研精六經). See also Sanguo zhi, 53.1256.
203. Xun Yue 荀悅, Hanji 漢紀, in Liang-Han ji 兩漢紀, ed. Zhang Lie 張烈 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2002), 4.249, 29.514, 30.535.
204. Yuan Hong 袁宏, Hou Hanji 後漢紀, in Liang-Han ji, 10.191, 15.298.
205. Dongguan Hanji jiaozhu, 14.553, 15.645, 16.708.
206. Nylan, “The Classics Without Canonization,” 732, 732 n. 9 notes that different sets of four, five, six, and seven classics are listed in late Eastern Han sources, and that there is no consensus on which texts these “extra” two classics might be. Possible candidates include the Lun yu and the Classic of Music, the Lun yu and the Xiaojing, or the Zhou li and the Li ji. See also Yang Bojun, Jingshu qiantan, 5.
207. Hou Han shu, 48.1606.
208. Hou Han shu, 60B.1990 and 79A.2558. Bizarrely, at least one scholar has attempted to prove that the Classic of Music actually was one of the texts carved into stone at the end of Eastern Han; see Wang Jinsheng 王錦生, “‘Yue jing’—yishi de rujia jingji —Henan bowuyuan cang Xiping shijing canshi neirong guankui” 《樂經》—佚失的儒家經籍—河南博物院藏熹平石經殘石內容管窺, Zhongyuan wenwu 2014.1, 83–86.
209. Hou Han shu, 35.1212. As noted above, the “Tianwen” chapter of the Hou Han shu seems to talk of “texts in the categories of the Six Classics” (liujing dianji), suggesting Fan Ye believed the Qin had burned written texts in six classic categories rather than six specific texts; see Hou Han shu, 3214 (zhi 10). Note also that in the many passages in the Hou Han shu dedicated to discussions about how to fix (ding 定) ritual and music, a pre-Qin music classic is never once mentioned.
210. It is tempting to speculate that the massive loss of texts occasioned by the fall of the Eastern Han and Western Jin 西晉 (266–316 c.e.) courts may also have contributed to this misunderstanding.
211. For an analysis of this trajectory, see Kern, Martin, “Ritual, Text, and the Formation of the Canon: Historical Transitions of Wen in Early China,” T’oung Pao 87.1–3 (2001), 43–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
212. One of the anonymous reviewers notes that this development was related to the increasing denigration within classical scholarship of performance genres relative to textual traditions over the course of imperial Chinese history.
213. Nylan, Michael, “The ku wen Documents in Han Times,” T’oung Pao 81.1–3 (1995), 25–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
214. This point is also reinforced in Nie Linxiao, “Yue ben wu jing,” 61–62.