Lan Ting Xu (兰亭序) Explained: Jay Chou's Song About a Lost Masterpiece

Most English writing about this song describes it as being inspired by the Orchid Pavilion Gathering of 353 CE — the famous party where forty-two men sat along a winding stream, floated wine cups, and wrote poems.

Check the lyric against that claim and something odd emerges. The gathering is not in it. 曲水流觞 — "winding stream, floating cups," the image that opens virtually every essay ever written about the Preface — does not appear anywhere in the song. Neither does the stream, nor the cups, nor the poems, nor the forty-two men.

What the lyric is full of instead is 临帖 (copying from a model book), 摹本 (a traced facsimile), 碑 (stele), 拓 (rubbing), 行书 (running script), 墨 and 朱砂 (ink and cinnabar). Every one of those words belongs to the apparatus of reproduction, not of composition.

That is not a mistake. It is the single most precise thing about the song, and nothing written about it in English seems to have noticed. The original 《兰亭集序》 does not exist. It has not existed for something like thirteen hundred years. Everything anyone has ever seen is a copy — so a love song built entirely out of copying vocabulary is doing exactly what its subject demands.

---

The song, and who actually made it

《兰亭序》 — Lántíng xù — is track seven of 《魔杰座》 (Capricorn), released 14 October 2008 after being pushed back from the 9th when the album leaked. Lyric by 方文山 (Vincent Fang), music by 周杰伦 (Jay Chou), arrangement by 钟兴民 (Zhong Xingmin). It runs 4:13.

---

The opening line

兰亭临帖　行书如行云流水

Lántíng lín tiè, xíng shū rú xíng yún liú shuǐ

"Copying the Lanting model; running script like moving cloud and flowing water."

Context: The song's first words. Note what the narrator is doing: not writing, not attending a party — 临帖, sitting with a model book and copying somebody else's characters, which is how every Chinese calligrapher in history has learned the art.

The classical layer: 《兰亭集序》, the Preface to the Poems Collected from the Orchid Pavilion, was written by 王羲之 (Wáng Xīzhī, 303–361) in the ninth year of the Yonghe era — 353 CE — at Lanting in Kuaiji Shanyin, modern Shaoxing in Zhejiang, at a spring purification rite called 修禊 (xiū xì). It is 324 characters in 28 columns, and it is called 天下第一行书, "the finest running script under heaven."

行书 (xíng shū), running script, is the middle register of Chinese writing: faster than the standard hand, still legible, the brush lifting less and the strokes beginning to connect. The comparison the lyric makes — moving cloud and flowing water — is the traditional one for it, and sits alongside the idiom 龙飞凤舞 (lóng fēi fèng wǔ), "dragon flying, phoenix dancing," which is what Chinese uses for a hand that has stopped stopping.

The most famous technical detail about the manuscript is that the character 之 appears in it around twenty times and is never written the same way twice. Sources disagree on the exact count — English references say twenty, Chinese ones say twenty-one, and the Tang-era account they both descend from gives no number at all, only that "of these, the character 之 is the most frequent." Say "about twenty" and you are safe.

For what the Preface actually argues — and it is not a party souvenir, it is a short and bleak piece about mortality — see the companion page: the Orchid Pavilion Preface explained.

---

The second line

千年碑易拓却难拓你的美

Qiān nián bēi yì tà què nán tà nǐ de měi

"A thousand-year stele is easy to rub, but your beauty is hard to rub."

Context: The line turns the whole conceit into the love song it is. But look at the verb.

The classical layer: 拓 (tà) is not a metaphor. It is a specific technology: you lay damp paper over an inscribed stone, tamp it into the incisions, and ink the raised surface, producing a white-on-black facsimile of the carving. Rubbings are how Chinese calligraphy survived. When an ink original was lost, the text was carved into stone, and the stone was rubbed; when the stone wore out or broke, older rubbings became the evidence. It is a chain of copies of copies, and for most canonical calligraphy it is the only chain there is.

So the line's structure — the stone is easy to reproduce, you are not — is doing something more pointed than "you are precious." It is saying: the entire civilisation has built a thousand-year machinery for duplicating things, and it does not work on a person.

---

How the original disappeared

The story, and it should be told as a story, runs like this.

Wang Xizhi's descendants kept the manuscript for generations. Emperor Taizong of the Tang wanted it badly. It had ended up with a monk named 辩才 (Biàncái), who denied having it, so Taizong sent an official named 萧翼 (Xiāo Yì) to befriend the monk in disguise and steal it. Taizong got the scroll, had it copied by his best court calligraphers, and — the story goes — had the original buried with him at 昭陵 (Zhaoling).

English Wikipedia flags the whole account as resting on anecdotal sources, and it is right to. But there is a second turn that English pages almost never carry.

In the Five Dynasties, the tomb robber 温韬 (Wēn Tāo) systematically looted the Tang imperial tombs, Zhaoling among them. A Five Dynasties history records that of all of them, 乾陵 (Qianling) alone could not be opened — storms drove the looters back every time. The inventory of what Wen Tao took from Zhaoling has come down to us, and the 兰亭集序 is not on it.

From which Chinese scholarship generally draws the opposite conclusion to the popular English one: if Zhaoling was opened and the manuscript was not in the haul, it is more likely sitting in Qianling — the joint tomb of Emperor Gaozong and Wu Zetian, which has never been excavated. Some research argues further that Zhaoling's seal stones were never disturbed at all.

None of this is established. Every step is an inference: that Taizong buried it, that Wen Tao's inventory is complete, that a manuscript absent from a list must be somewhere else. What can be said flatly is only this — the original is gone, nobody has produced it, and the most commonly repeated guess in Chinese writing is Qianling rather than Zhaoling. If you have read that it is "known to be in Zhaoling," that is the version this page is correcting.

---

What actually survives

The copies are not all the same kind of object, and the distinctions matter.

• 神龙本 (Shenlong version), traced by 冯承素 in the Tang, is considered the closest thing to the original — 28 columns, 324 characters. Palace Museum, Beijing.
• 天历本, after 虞世南, and the 褚摹本, after 褚遂良 — also Palace Museum, Beijing.
• A yellow-silk Lanting attributed to 褚遂良 — National Palace Museum, Taipei.
• 定武本 (Dingwu version), the stone-carved line traced to 欧阳询 and the most esteemed of the rubbing lineages — surviving rubbings are in Taipei and at the Tokyo National Museum.

In 1779 the Qianlong emperor had the major versions carved onto stone as the 兰亭八柱, the Eight Pillars of Lanting, at the Yuanmingyuan. And in 1965 the People's Republic held a public scholarly argument — the 兰亭论辩 — over whether Wang Xizhi wrote the thing at all, with Guo Moruo arguing the text and the calligraphy were both later fabrications.

A tradition this elaborate is what 入木三分 (rù mù sān fēn) descends from — the story that Wang Xizhi's ink sank three fen into a wooden board, so that the carver found it already three-tenths of an inch deep. It is a legend about a man whose writing was physically impossible to erase, attached to a man not one of whose originals survives.

---

The song's own copying problem

There is one last symmetry, and it is genuinely funny.

The lyric contains a third well-known line about a 摹本 — a traced copy — and the lingering scent of ink. It is not quoted here, because the lyric databases do not agree on what it says. Licensed music services carry one pair of characters; the open, crowd-sourced lyric archives carry two different homophones in the same two positions. The same thing happens to a line about 朱砂, cinnabar, where even the counting word changes.

A song about how copies drift from originals, whose own text has drifted between copies. Nobody planned that.

It is worth reading the Preface's actual argument alongside this, because Wang Xizhi is making precisely the point that the song's structure accidentally proves: that later readers will look at what we leave behind exactly as we look at what was left to us, and feel the same thing. Life measured against that is 白驹过隙 (bái jū guò xì) — a white colt glimpsed through a gap in the wall, and then gone. The copies are what is left. Fang wrote a love song out of that, and got the vocabulary exactly right.

---

Related reading on this site: the Orchid Pavilion Preface explained — the party, the argument about death, and the year the state held a public debate about a scroll; and Huizhou ink, for what 墨 actually was as a manufactured object.