Qín zhǐ 琴旨
The Essentials of the Qín by 王坦 (Wáng Tǎn)
About the work
A two-juan music treatise on the qín (seven-string zither) by Wáng Tǎn of Nántōngzhōu, written in close dependence on the imperial Yù zhì Lǜlǚ zhèngyì of Kāngxī (presented 1714). Wáng’s framing thesis — set out in the Sìkù tiyao — is that all earlier writers on qínlǜ (qín string-pitch theory) have made one or more of five recurrent errors: (1) failing to grasp the Guǎnzǐ “sānyīn jiǔkāi” (three-cause-nine-open) method; (2) failing to distinguish qín string-tone fēn from pipe-tone fēn; (3) failing to grasp the Guǎnzǐ “108 = zhǐ” derivation and the Báihǔ tōng “lí-tone honours-zhǐ” doctrine, instead taking the largest string as gōng; (4) failing to take the third string as gōng; (5) treating zhènggōng alone as the only modal mode after the Suí abolition of full xuángōng. The book is, on the Sìkù compilers’ verdict, the most accomplished mid-Qīng qínlǜ treatise — fully consistent with the imperial Lǜlǚ zhèngyì and one that “does not lose its principle” (bù shī qí zōng).
Tiyao
[Your servants] respectfully report: Qín zhǐ in 2 juàn, by Wáng Tǎn of our dynasty. Wáng Tǎn’s zì was Jítú; he was a man of Nántōngzhōu. From of old those who discuss qín string-pitch have erred in five ways: (1) not grasping the Guǎnzǐ’s “sānyīn jiǔkāi” method, and so applying pipe-tone pitches to fix string-tone; (2) not knowing how to use the five tones plus èr biàn to clarify the string-tone fingering-position fractions, and applying the pitch-pipes themselves to set the fingering-positions (huī); (3) not grasping the Guǎnzǐ doctrine that 108 = zhǐ and the Báihǔ tōng’s “lí-tone honours zhǐ” doctrine, and so being misled by the maxim “dà bù yú gōng” (“the great does not exceed gōng”) and treating the largest string as gōng; (4) not knowing that the third string is gōng, and so taking the first string’s tenth fret as zhònglǚ; (5) reasoning from the zhènggōng one mode to argue the entire pitch-system, claiming that the Suí dynasty’s abolition of xuángōng preserved only the huángzhōngjūn, and so missing the full set of five-tone xuángōng mode-rotations. Only the imperial Lǜlǚ zhèngyì has fixed these matters in detail and brought forth what previous writers had not. Wáng Tǎn’s book systematically follows the Zhèngyì’s purport and pushes the reasoning back-and-forth. — His Wǔshēng shùlùn (Five-tone Numerology Discussion) on the qín says: silk-string string-tone is in essence empty (in distinction from pipe-tone which is full); hence one must use the five-tone numbers to fix the silk-thread’s thread-count (duōguǎ) as the substance, and to fix the huī-fret fractional positions (shūmì) as the use; one cannot use huángzhōng 9-cùn and tàicù 8-cùn as the criterion. Pipe-tone full-and-half do not respond; string-tone full-and-half do respond. Comparing pipe-pitches with huī-fret fractions: if one wants the tones to coincide, the fractions will not — and vice versa. This is the substance of the Zhèngyì’s two essays “using five tones plus èr biàn to fix string-tone fractions” and “pipe-tone and string-tone full-and-half-response differ”. — His exposition of the huángzhōngjūn taking zhònglǚ as jué doubt: the first string’s full-length open-tone is línzhōng zhǐ, hence its tenth fret is huángzhōng gōng position, hence it responds to the third string’s open-tone. If one were to take the first string’s full-length open-tone as huángzhōng, then the tenth fret would be zhònglǚ position and could not respond to the third string’s gūxǐ jué — which is the Zhèngyì’s point that “silk-tone honours zhǐ; the first string is not gōng”. — His exposition of why the third string is uniquely one fret lower: the tenth-fret fraction is 3/4 of full length; the gōng-tone third string’s full length is 81 fēn; tripling gives 243; one-quarter of 243 = 60.75 (= 10th-fret fraction); but the actual full-length is jué-tone 64 fēn; pressing on the third string at the 64-fēn position then responds — hence at the eleventh fret. — His exposition of why the fifth string is uniquely half a fret higher: the five tones use double-and-half for response; the ninth-fret fraction is 2/3 of full length and produces the string’s mutually-generated tone; the fifth string is jué; jué generates biàngōng, but the third string is gōng — hence cannot respond to the ninth-fret biàngōng tone but must lie at half-fret-higher. This is the Zhèngyì’s “gōng on the third string places its jué position at the eleventh fret; jué-string places its gōng position at the eighth-and-a-half fret”. — His exposition of fànyīn sìzhǔn (the four nodes of harmonic tones): the entire string takes the seventh fret as boundary; from the seventh fret upwards to the head-bridge produces clear-tone harmonics; the five tones plus èr biàn fractional tones respond to the actual-tones; from the eighth fret to the thirteenth fret produces muddy-tone harmonics that do not respond to the actual-tones, and these must be played from the tail-bridge to the huī in turn. — His exposition of the xuán gōng zhuǎn diào (rotating modal modes): jué-mode’s jué string tightens by one tone and becomes gōng — and that is xuán gōng; once jué becomes gōng, then gōng shifts to zhǐ, zhǐ to shāng, shāng to yǔ, yǔ to jué — all by successive shifting. On the Zhèngyì’s diagrams and arguments he is especially capable of fine-grained illumination. Among the present-day writers on the qín, he may be said never to lose his fundamental principle. (Tiyao concludes the work; the source _000.txt opens with the Qiánlóng yǐmǎo (1795) imperial colophon also appended to KR1i0009 and to the zǐbù yìshùlèi qín treatises, denouncing the modern qín tradition.) Respectfully edited and presented in the eleventh month of Qiánlóng 46 (1781). Editor-Generals: Jì Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì. Editor-in-chief: Lù Fèichí.
Abstract
The Qín zhǐ is the most fully theoretically-developed mid-Qīng treatise on the qín string-tone system. Its strength is the systematic application of the imperial Lǜlǚ zhèngyì’s full apparatus (string-fret fractions, gōng-on-third-string, sequential xuán gōng shifting) to the previously-vexed problems of qín tuning and modal practice. Wáng Tǎn’s distinctive contribution is the polemical structuring: by identifying five recurrent errors — and demonstrating that all earlier qínlǜ writers had committed at least one of them — he positions the Lǜlǚ zhèngyì as the unique correct framework for qín theory. The work is therefore the most thorough Qīng-period vindication of the imperial musical-theoretical orthodoxy in the technical qín domain. Composition is not precisely datable; the work cites the Lǜlǚ zhèngyì (presented 1714), is approximately contemporary with Jiāng Yǒng’s KR1i0020 and KR1i0021, and was complete by 1755. Bracket: 1730–1755.
Translations and research
- 楊蔭瀏. 1981. 中國古代音樂史稿. — Brief notice of the Qín zhǐ in its mid-Qīng context.
- 戴念祖. 1994. 中國聲學史. 河北教育出版社. — Treats the work in relation to the Lǜ-lǚ zhèng-yì.
- No further substantial Western-language secondary literature located.
Other points of interest
The opening Qiánlóng yǐmǎo (1795) imperial colophon attached to this entry (and to KR1i0009) is the same composite document by which the Qiánlóng emperor formalized the late-Qīng court doctrine that ancient music was one-character-one-tone (yī zì yī yīn). The colophon directs that the Qín zhǐ be entered into the Sìkù under the jīngbù yuèlèi alongside the Yuèlǜ quán shū, while the two later qín anthologies (Yán Chéng’s Sōngxián guǎn qínpǔ and Chéng Xióng’s Sōngfēng gé qínpǔ) are demoted to zǐbù yìshùlèi — a deliberate genre-discrimination indicating that the Qín zhǐ’s theoretical orthodoxy puts it in the jīng category whereas the actual qín anthologies are merely “skill-art” (yìshù).