臥箜篌와 玄琴

• 영문명: Komungo and Wo-k’unghou
• 발행기관: 백산학회
• 저자명: 李惠求(LEE Hye-ku)
• 간행물 정보: 『백산학보』第2號, 65~83쪽, 전체 19쪽
• 주제분류: 인문학 > 역사학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 1967.05.01

영문 초록

New sources referring to the komungo or wo-k’unghou together with studies on them were recently published by Japanese scholars. The gilt canopy with decoration in open work which had been preserved in the Horyuji Temple in Japan shows a zither with four strings and more than ten frets. This instrument which is credited to a Kokuryo artisan closely resembles those instruments painted on the walls of the Kokuryo tombs the Muyong-chong(tomb)which includes the painting of a dance, and tomb no. 17. Another discovery is that of a wall painting found in a tomb in Liaoyang in Manchuria excavated in 1944. This tomb dated in the latter part of the Later Han Dynasty also shows a zither with frets. This instrument, however, has only seven frets and does not clearly show the number of strings. Mr. Shigeo Kishibe, in the Origin of the K’unghou, remarked as follows: “It may be concluded that the wo-k’unghou was the precursor of the hyon-kum that is, komungo,” (p.28) while admitting that “the actual style of the wo-k’unghou is not known”. (p.24) Mr. Kenzo Hayashi in Tung-ya yueh-ch’i K’ao (On Oriental Musical Instruments) concludes that the zithers found in the old paintings and canopy are examples of the Chinese wo-k’unghou, and that it is wrong to regard them as Korean komungo. In my opinion Mr. Hayashi’s thesis is open to some question. First of all the word “wo-k’unghou” in question cannot be found until the Sui Dynasty(Sui-shu). Moreover, the actual style of this Chinese instrument, as Mr. Kishibe remarked, is not known. In Japan the word “wo-k’unghou” cannot be found before the Taigensho (1512 A.D.) which gives both an explanation and an illustration of it. The text, however, describes the wo-k’unghou as a zither with five string, while the illustration shows only four strings. The Taigensho itself then seems to be at odds in its description of the instrument. Mr. Kishibe further points out that the account of the wo-k’unghou in the Taigensho resembles the T’ung-tien (T’ang Dynasty) account, and he concludes that the Taigensho certainly makes use of the T’ung-tien. As to the illustration Mr. Kishibe concedes as follows : “But to our regret the original source of the illustration cannot be known.”(p. 28). Thus one is led to believe that the reliability of the Taigensho is not unassailable. Furthermore Mr. Hayashi reasons that the instruments being found in the tomb at Liaoyang indicates their Chinese provenance. However we feel that there is insufficient basis for considering them las being the same instruments inasmuch as there are only seven frets and no indication of the number of strings in the Liaoyang instruments whereas there are four strings and more than ten frets indicated in the Kokuryo examples. From all this we may conclude that the wo-k’unghou, the actual style of it is not known, is as shadowy and uncertain a factor as the komungo credited to the Kokuryo musician is. The identity of both or either must be established through the unearthing of new sources before we may hazard to say which is represented in the painting and canopy. Needless to say a fun description of the number of strings and frets is required in the case of the An-ak tomb painting also before asserting that it is a komungo as has been done in the Reports of the Excavation. This leads us to the question as to whether the wo-k’ung-hou is general tenn or a tenn referring to a specific instrument. We do not think that this question can be resolved on the basis of the information available.

목차

Ⅰ. 머리말

Ⅱ. 考古學資料

Ⅲ. 臥箜篌

Ⅳ. 맺음말