The Origin of the Sijo (時調) Poetic Form In Relation to Old Korean Music Scores

This article examines the origin of the sijo form based on the traditional Korean music scores such as mandaeyŏp (慢大葉, fifteenth to sixteenth century music) and chinjak 1 眞勺一, twelfth to fifteenth century music) and estimates that sijo originated in the late fifteenth to sixteenth centuries. It is commonly believed that sijo originated in hyangga or Koryŏ kayo and has been sung and enjoyed since the late Koryŏ dynasty (高麗, 918– 1392). However, this common perception lacks empirical evidence. Sijo is a sung form and its music originated from the mandaeyŏp (慢大葉) song, so an examination of its musical background is necessary to provide solid evidence to determine its origin. Some researchers have argued that the first sijo song, mandaeyŏp (慢大葉), originated from chinjak 3, but have not provided specific evidence of the relationship between the two compositions. This research investigates the derivation of mandaeyŏp from chinjak 1 (眞勺一) rather than chinjak 3 (眞勺三) on the basis of clear similarities in form and melody between the two types of composition. Because mandaeyŏp shows such concrete influences from chinjak 1 in Taeak hubo (大樂後譜), a collection of popular songs during King Sejo’s reign (世祖, r. 1455–1468), readers have inferred that the time of derivation of mandaeyŏp is close to that of chinjak 1. In fact, mandaeyŏp scores did not emerge before King Sejo’s reign, during the late fifteenth century, but appeared continuously after his reign. Looking at the problem from a literary perspective, sijo poems initially emerged in munjip (文集), or literati’s private collections, and their poetic form is intricately connected with the mandaeyŏp score. This consistent evidence clearly shows that the sijo form originated and developed under the influence of mandaeyŏp scores around the late fifteenth century.

Sijo (時調), a traditional Korean three-line poetic form, is often regarded by scholars as having originated in the late Koryŏ dynasty (高麗, 918–1392).¹ Nonetheless, not all scholars agree with this assumption. For instance, Sŏng Hogyŏng argues that sijo emerged in the fifteenth century, early in the Chosŏn dynasty (朝鮮, 1392–1910). ²Other scholars have argued that it was created later, only after the sixteenth century.³

The discrepancies among scholars’ opinions regarding the origin of sijo relate to the sijo collections to which they refer. Sijo occurs in two types of books: private collections (munjip, 文集) and compilations by mainly professional musicians (kajip, 歌集). The professional compilations, such as Ch’ŏnggu yŏngŏn (靑丘永言, 1728) and Haedong kayo (海東歌謠, 1755), ascribed many sijo poems to men who lived before the Chosŏn dynasty—from U T’ak (禹倬, 1263–1342) and Chŏng Mongju (鄭夢周, 1337–1392) in the late Koryŏ dynasty to Ŭlp’aso (乙巴素, d. 203) of the Koguryŏ (高句麗) Kingdom and Sŏng Ch’ung (成忠, d. 656) of the Paekche (百濟) Kingdom—leading some scholars to conclude that sijo emerged prior to the Chosŏn dynasty. However, the compilations by professional musicians appeared only after the eighteenth century. Thus, the attributions in these compilations, produced centuries after the fact, are somewhat dubious, especially since no materials mention sijo poems before the Chosŏn dynasty. Thus some scholars, skeptical of the attributions in professional compilations, value the records in private collections more highly and argue that sijo developed only after the foundation of the Chosŏn dynasty, around the fifteenth or the sixteenth century, when private collections containing sijo started to emerge.

Even those scholars who depend on the attributions in professional compilations dismiss early authors like Sŏng Ch’ung of the Paekche Kingdom and trust only the authors of the late Koryŏ period. However, they do not clarify the criteria on which they base their judgment. While we might be more skeptical of authors from ancient kingdoms as compared to those from the late Koryŏ dynasty, we cannot place our trust in the latter simply because they are more recent. In this respect, theories based on extant materials, which conclude that sijo were formed in the late fifteenth to sixteenth centuries, are more trustworthy. However, empirical methods relying on documentary evidence confront the challenge of finding sufficient documentation, and it is always helpful if more evidence is found to support the theories. ⁴

In an effort to resolve such different opinions and provide a new source of documentary evidence, this article examines old music scores, assuming that sijo poems originated as lyrics sung to a musical tune. ⁵Here, we naturally focus on court music such as the mandaeyŏp (慢大葉) composition and the chinjak (眞勺) genre, which were mentioned in some traditional score books as follows:

All kagok (歌曲) [namely sijo] compositions have their origins in mandaeyŏp.⁶

The mandaeyŏp, chungdaeyŏp, and saktaeyŏp of the present day all came from the three-formed music genre, chinjak.⁷

When Yi Tŭgyun (李得胤, 1553–1630) refers to kagok (歌曲), he means an elegant style of music, performed with a variety of musical instruments, that accompanies sijo lyrics. He contends that mandaeyŏp is the earliest musical composition to accompany sijo in his time, an idea generally accepted by scholars today. ⁸Thus, we can elucidate the development of the sijo form by exploring the development of the mandaeyŏp composition. However, as with sijo itself, neither the composer nor the period of creation of mandaeyŏp are certain. Here, the second excerpt above is relevant, as Yang Tŏksu (梁德壽, 1567–1608) explains that mandaeyŏp was derived from an earlier musical form, chinjak (眞勺). Thus, if we discover how chinjak influenced mandaeyŏp, we can approach an understanding of the process of formation of mandaeyŏp. Unfortunately, however, Yang Tŏksu does not indicate exactly which chinjak composition and which part of it developed into mandaeyŏp, and this is yet to be established.

Chinjak originated in a famous Koryŏ court song, namely Chŏng kwajŏng (鄭瓜亭)⁹ by Chŏng Sŏ (鄭敍, c. twelfth century), and developed into various forms such chinjak 1, chinjak 2, chinjak 3, and chinjak 4.¹⁰ It is not certain when these works were composed, but they seem to have existed at least as early as the fourteenth century, based on the fact that the chinjak style influenced Hujŏn chinjak (後殿眞勺), said to have been composed in the reign of the Koryŏ King Ch’unghye (忠惠, r. 1330–1344). ¹¹ Although literati officials of the Chosŏn dynasty disparaged most of the Koryŏ court songs, they highly valued chinjak compositions performed with Chŏng kwajŏng lyrics.¹² This influential chinjak also affected mandaeyŏp, as Yang Tŏksu’s statement above reveals, and is a key to understanding the musical and literary transition from Koryŏ to Chosŏn. However, the process by which mandaeyŏp arose from chinjak is a long-standing riddle that has yet to be solved, as several Korean musicologists have observed.¹³

This article examines the musical relationship between mandaeyŏp and chinjak to discover the period of creation of mandaeyŏp and the sijo form. To this end, we first discuss which chinjak composition should be the focus of a valid comparison, and then we investigate in detail the structural and melodic relationships between mandaeyŏp and the specific chinjak composition. Through this musical examination, we can determine the period when mandaeyŏp was formed and the sijo genre was created. After the musical examination, we will investigate literary evidence to consolidate our conclusions. We will look into literary materials to show that mandaeyŏp scores and sijo songs emerged around the time that mandaeyŏp was derived from chinjak. Examining the structure of the sijo poetry in its infancy in relation to that of mandaeyŏp and its lyrics, we also show the structural commonalities between the two. Such literary evidence will support the argument of this paper that the sijo genre was formed in conjunction with mandaeyŏp around the late fifteenth century.

1. METHODOLOGIES

1.1. Comparison target

Almost all studies on the origins of mandaeyŏp have focused on chinjak 3. This may have resulted from interpretations of Yang Tŏksu’s assertion cited above, “The mandaeyŏp, chungdaeyŏp, and saktaeyŏp of the present day all came from the three-formed music genre, chinjak.” ¹⁴ As mentioned above, Yang’s statement led scholars to assume a relationship between the music of sijo—that is, the mandaeyŏp, chungdaeyŏp, and saktaeyŏp—and chinjak. Moreover, his use of the expression samgigok 三機曲 appears to have drawn many scholars to focus on chinjak 3. Sam in samgigok literally means “three” or “third,” gi means “form,” and gok means “tune.” Scholars have thus understood the expression samgigok as a reference to chinjak 3.

However, the word samgigok may also indicate the entire body of chinjak-style work, which includes three independent pieces, namely chinjak 1, chinjak 2, and chinjak 3.¹⁵ Therefore, the scope of the research should expand to include every taeyŏp section of chinjak 1, 2, and 3. Such a perspective may help elucidate what Yang Tŏksu attempted to convey in his statement. On this premise, the present paper focuses on chinjak 1 to disclose empirical commonalities between mandaeyŏp and chinjak.

More specifically, this paper investigates the taeyŏp (大葉) and puyŏp (附葉) sections of chinjak 1. Chinjak-style music is composed of a number of kang (腔) and yŏp (葉).¹⁶ Taeyŏp is a kind of yŏp and literally means “big yŏp.” Because mandaeyŏp literally means “slow taeyŏp,” one might easily assume that the part of chinjak related to mandaeyŏp is its taeyŏp section. Scholars such as Hwang Chunyŏn¹⁷ and Kwŏn Tuhwan¹⁸ have tried to discover the musical relationship between mandaeyŏp and the taeyŏp and puyŏp¹⁹ sections of chinjak. However, both of them selected chinjak 3 as their comparison target and were unable to identify a concrete musical relationship between the two compositions.²⁰ The present paper also examines the taeyŏp and puyŏp sections of chinjak, but focuses on chinjak 1, and not chinjak 3.²¹

The mandaeyŏp canon consists of thirty-seven scores with largely similar structures and melodies, the earliest of which is in An Sang’s Kŭm hapchabo, to which the present article refers.²² For the score of chinjak 1, we refer to Taeak hubo, a compilation of court music scores performed during the reign of King Sejo (世祖, r. 1455–1468).²³

1.2. Methods of musical comparison

1.2.1. Interpretation of chŏngganbo (井間譜, mensural notation)

The scores of mandaeyŏp and chinjak 1 are chŏngganbo, a type of traditional Korean musical score. The word chŏngganbo consists of chŏnggan (井間), referring to the small squares containing notes, and bo (譜), referring to the score. Sixteen chŏnggan units comprise a musical phrase (haeng, 行), and two or three phrases make up a musical passage (chi, 旨). In the original score, the notes are expressed with signs, such as ha 1 (下一), kung (宮), and sang 1 (上一). Kung is the basic note, and the scale rises by one note in the order sang 1, sang 2, sang 3, and descends by one note in the order ha 1, ha 2, ha 3. The scale with these notes matches the Western scale as follows (the superscript plus or minus sign on some notes indicates that the note is played an octave higher or lower, respectively):²⁴

For the benefit of readers more comfortable with the Western scale, the traditional names of the notes are changed in this way in the present paper.²⁵

1.2.2. Comparison of the musical structure and melody

Musical comparison between mandaeyŏp and the taeyŏp and puyŏp sections of chinjak 1 is conducted in two ways: one is the comparison of musical structures between the two compositions, and the other is melodic comparison. Following is the explanation of these two methods.

1.2.2.1. Comparison of the typical structure of mandaeyŏp

The musical structure of mandaeyŏp is already clear. Mandaeyŏp consists of five passages, each of which contains two or three musical phrases. The five passages, as Hwang Chunyŏn has indicated,²⁶ have a repetitive structure: the second and fourth passages have largely similar melodies, and the third and fifth are almost the same. Thus, the overall pattern is “A [1^st passage]–B [2^nd passage]–C [3^rd passage]– B [4^th passage]–C [5^th passage],” as shown in the following score:

Score 1: Musical structure of mandaeyŏp in Kŭm hapchabo²⁷

This structure is the same as that of saktaeyŏp and chungdaeyŏp. Therefore, it is an essential characteristic of taeyŏp-style music. An important remark in Yang Tŏksu’s scorebook corroborates this: “The playing techniques between the second passage and the fourth passage and between the third and the fifth in taeyŏp-style music pieces are similar.”²⁸ This original structure of taeyŏp-style music also appears in the taeyŏp and puyŏp of chinjak 1, and it is investigated in Section 3 of the present article.

1.2.2.2. Melodic comparison

The structural comparison, as explained above, will suggest that mandaeyŏp emerged from the taeyŏp and puyŏp sections of chinjak 1. However, such structural similarities also exist between mandaeyŏp and the taeyŏp and puyŏp sections of chinjak 3, as Kim Chinhŭi has pointed out.²⁹ Only a comparison of the melodies, rather than the broad structural commonalities, can conclusively establish the derivation of mandaeyŏp. No melodic section of chinjak 3 shows similarity with that of mandaeyŏp, whereas the melodies of mandaeyŏp and the taeyŏp and puyŏp sections of chinjak 1 display similarities in six units, so these units are examined in the following section of this paper.³⁰

Melodic similarities between two compositions are sometimes difficult to find when investigating the compositions as they are notated in the original scores, because adding or taking out some notes of an original work was common. Tempo or rhythm can also be changed during the process. For example, one phrase in the original score could be enlarged two times by slowing the tempo or adding some variations or ornaments. Thus, we will use a kind of diagram in the next section, which can show the melodic similarities more distinctly. The diagram does not represent the original rhythm of compositions, but we will also present chŏngganbo scores for reference to this aspect of the compositions.

2. MUSICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN MANDAEYŎP AND THE TAEYŎP AND PUYŎP SECTIONS OF CHINJAK 1

2.1. Comparison of musical structure

The original structure of the taeyŏp-style music discussed in the previous section³¹ appears in the taeyŏp and puyŏp sections of chinjak 1, as shown in the following score:

Score 2: Musical structure of taeyŏp and puyŏp sections of chinjak 1 in Taeak hubo³²

Among the repeated melodies in the score, the most noteworthy aspect is that the second passage (lines 35–36) and the fourth passage (lines 41–42) are almost identical (Similar Melody Section 1):³³

2^nd passage: sol sol la sol do⁺ la do⁺ la sol la sol sol mi sol la sol sol mi re sol sol mi re sol

4^th passage: sol sol la sol do⁺ la do⁺ la sol la sol sol    mi sol la sol mi re do   re sol

The third and fifth passages, both containing four phrases, share similar melodies as well. The melody in the first two phrases of the third passage is largely the same as that at the beginning of the fifth passage (Similar Melody Section 2):

3^rd passage (phrases 37–38): sol sol sol la sol sol mi re mi sol   mi re do la^-

5^th passage (phrases 43–44): sol sol sol la sol sol mi re   sol sol mi re do do la^-

The latter part of the third and the fifth passages are also of great importance, as their melodies are identical (Similar Melody Section 3):

3^rd passage (phrases 39–40): sol la sol sol mi re sol sol mi re

5^th passage (phrases 45–46): sol la sol sol mi re sol sol mi re

The melodic repetition in these three sections reflects a musical structure similar to that of mandaeyŏp: the melody of the second passage is repeated in the fourth passage, and the third passage’s melody is repeated in the fifth passage.

The taeyŏp and puyŏp sections of chinjak 1 are divided into five passages, and these bear the structure “A [1^st passage]–B [2^nd passage]–C [3^rd passage]–B [4^th passage]–C [5^th passage],”³⁴ which corresponds precisely to the structure of the mandaeyŏp, suggesting that mandaeyŏp has a close musical relationship to the taeyŏp and puyŏp sections of chinjak 1. A comparison of the melodies of the two works will reveal their relationship even more clearly.

2.2 Comparison of Melody

The melodies of mandaeyŏp and the taeyŏp and puyŏp sections of chinjak 1 display similarities in six sections, as shown in the following scores:

Score 3: Taeyŏp and puyŏp sections of chinjak 1: melodic comparison with mandaeyŏp³⁵

Score 4: Mandaeyŏp: Melodic comparison with the taeyŏp and puyŏp sections of chinjak 1³⁶

In Related Melody Section 1—phrase 33 of chinjak 1 and phrase 1 of mandaeyŏp— the two melodies have a virtually identical flow. When the spaces are readjusted and schematized, we can see their close relationship, although mandaeyŏp drops one sol:

Chinjak 1, phrase 33: sol sol la sol sol mi reMandaeyŏp, phrase 1: sol sol la   sol mi re

Related Melody Section 2 compares phrase 35 of chinjak 1 and phrase 2 of mandaeyŏp. Mandaeyŏp utilizes certain variations by adding “do⁺ la” and “re⁺” in the middle, but when we readjust the beats, we can see that the two are closely related melodies with the same base:

Chinjak 1, phrase 35: sol la   sol   do⁺ la do⁺ la solMandaeyŏp, phrase 2: sol la do⁺ la sol re⁺ do⁺   do⁺ la sol

Related Melody Section 3 compares phrase 36 of chinjak 1 and phrase 3 of mandaeyŏp. In this case, mandaeyŏp adds a “do⁺,” drops a sol in the middle, and omits a double sol near the end, but again the two are largely similar:

Chinjak 1, phrase 36: sol   la sol sol mi re sol sol miMandaeyŏp, phrase 3: sol do⁺la   sol mi re   mi [End Page 236]

In Related Melody Section 4—phrases 41–42 of chinjak 1 and phrases 4–6 of mandaeyŏp—mandaeyŏp omits the first “la sol” in chinjak 1 and adds an expanded variation of the italicized “la sol” part in the middle: “mi re sol la sol mi la.” Overall, however, the melodies are again quite similar:

Chinjak 1, phrases 41–42:sol sol la sol do⁺ la do⁺la sol   la sol   sol mi sol la sol mi re Mandaeyŏp, phrases 4–6:sol sol   do⁺la do⁺la sol mi re sol la sol mi la sol mi sol la sol mi re

In Related Melody Section 5, the melodies of the two compositions appear unrelated in the original scores,³⁸ but the translated versions clearly show that phrase 8 of mandaeyŏp³⁹ is an octave-raised version of phrase 44 of chinjak 1, with the notes “mi⁺ re⁺ do⁺” added:

Chinjak 1, phrase 44: sol   mi   re   do     do     la^- sol^-   sol^-Mandaeyŏp, phrase 8: sol   mi⁺   re⁺   do⁺   la   do⁺   mi⁺ re⁺ do⁺ la   sol

Related Melody Section 6 compares phrases 45–46 of chinjak 1 and phrase 9 of mandaeyŏp, which are identical.

Chinjak 1, phrase 45–46: la la sol sol solMandaeyŏp, phrase 9:   la la sol sol sol

Taken together, these examples show that the majority of the melodies of mandaeyŏp were derived from chinjak 1’s taeyŏp and puyŏp sections. Some of its melodies differ to form the “A–B–C–B–C” musical structure typical in taeyŏp-style music, but the melodies of mandaeyŏp as a whole show clear influence from those of chinjak 1’s taeyŏp and puyŏp sections. Returning to Yang Tŏksu’s statement that the mandaeyŏp, chungdaeyŏp, and saktaeyŏp of his time all came from chinjak, we can now confidently interpret this to mean that chungdaeyŏp and saktaeyŏp were developed from mandaeyŏp, and that mandaeyŏp was derived directly from chinjak 1’s taeyŏp and puyŏp sections.

As demonstrated in the present section, the scores of mandaeyŏp and chinjak 1 in Taeak hubo are very similar in their form and melody. This fact implies that mandaeyŏp was derived from chinjak 1 around King Sejo’s reign, when music compositions in Taeak hubo were performed. Next we will investigate when mandaeyŏp scores and sijo songs began to appear in literature and consider if the times match with King Sejo’s reign. Then we will examine the literary structure of early sijo works, comparing them with the lyrics of mandaeyŏp. These examinations help consolidate the assumption of this paper that the sijo genre was formed under the influence of mandaeyŏp around the late fifteenth century.

3. LITERARY EVIDENCE

3.1 The temporal distribution of mandaeyŏp and early sijo

As mentioned above, the earliest occurring written mandaeyŏp that exists today is that in Kŭm hapchabo (1572).⁴⁰ However, evidence indicates that mandaeyŏp existed earlier: Cho Sŏng po (趙晟譜, Cho Sŏng’s score) contains the mandaeyŏp that Cho Sŏng (趙晟, 1492–1555) edited, and although the original version of Cho Sŏng po has disappeared, a copy of it is included in Hyŏn’gŭm tongmun yugi [The records of kŏmun’go].⁴¹ In addition, Taeak hubo, which contains the court music played during King Sejo’s time, confirms that mandaeyŏp not only existed but was also sufficiently popular to be recorded in the king’s reign. An Sang himself adds in the postscript to Kŭm hapchabo that he edited mandaeyŏp when he became the administrator of Changagwŏn (掌樂院), the office of court music and performance, in 1561.⁴² This clearly indicates that mandaeyŏp had been performed prior to 1561.

Mandaeyŏp did not appear in any private or official books before King Sejo’s reign, but collections continued to record it from the late fifteenth to the early seventeenth centuries. Yanggŭm sinbo (1610), another important score that postdates Kŭm hapchabo, also includes mandaeyŏp.⁴³ Questions arise as to the meaning of these temporal issues: Why were mandaeyŏp not included in any books before King Sejo’s reign, such as in Sejong sillok (世宗實錄, The annals of King Sejong, r. 1418–1450) or Taeak chŏnbo (大樂前譜, The former part of the court music score),⁴⁴ which contain numerous pieces of court music from the reign of King Sejong? Why did mandaeyŏp suddenly appear in King Sejo’s time, and why was it continuously recorded afterward? The most plausible answer to these questions is that mandaeyŏp was derived from chinjak 1 and became a popular form of court music around the time of King Sejo’s reign.

Mandaeyŏp in Taeak hubo does not contain lyrics, whereas that in An Sang’s score contains lyrics;⁴⁵ these lyrics share similar forms with sijo. On this basis, we might infer that mandaeyŏp was originally instrumental music without lyrics in King Sejo’s time, but came to accompany lyrics after Sejo’s reign, around the late fifteenth century, at the time when Cho Sŏng and An Sang’s scores were written. This inference aligns with the temporal distribution of sijo works that can be reliably dated; these are concentrated in the sixteenth century, as shown in the table below.

Early Sijo
Original Title	Title in English	Author	Year of Composition	Year of Record	Source
Changyuktang yukka (藏六堂六歌)	Six songs in Changyuktang46	Yi Pyŏl (李鼈)	Early 16th century	17th century	Yangsŏjip (瀼西集)47
Naonda	Come, today	Kim Ku (金絿)	1506–1534	1659	Chaamjip (自菴集)48
Ŏbudan'ga (漁父短歌)	Fishermen’s short songs	Yi Hyŏnbo (李賢輔)	1549	1549	Nongamjip (聾巖集)49
Tosan sibigok (陶山十二曲)	Twelve songs in Tosan50	Yi Hwang (李滉)	1565	1565	Facsimile from wood-block print edition replica51

The earliest sijo poet identified above is Yi Pyŏl in the early sixteenth century, and the remaining poets all lived in the same century. This temporal distribution of reliably dated early sijo works aligns with the period in which mandaeyŏp was assumed to be formed and performed with lyrics. This coincidence flags the relationship between the two events, namely the creation of mandaeyŏp and the creation of sijo.

Although the periods of composition of Yi Pyŏl and Kim Ku’s sijo poems predate those of Yi Hyŏnbo and Yi Hwang, the latter have more significance than the former with regard to the early form of sijo. Yi Pyŏl’s sijo were not recorded in Korean, but translated into Chinese, so the original cannot be identified, while Kim Ku’s sijo song was recorded only in the late seventeenth century. In contrast, Yi Hyŏnbo and Yi Hwang’s sijo songs were composed and recorded at similar times and in Korean. Yi Hyŏnbo’s sijo songs, the earliest published among the above-mentioned sijo works, are especially crucial in that they exhibit formal characteristics that correspond to the form of mandaeyŏp in the lyrics of onari, as discussed in the following section.

3.2. Formal correspondence between mandaeyŏp’s lyrics and early sijo

Mandaeyŏp in Kŭm hapchabo⁵² conveys lyrics, usually called onari as they begin with the word onari, which means “today.” Onari differ slightly in form from the usual sijo, but are largely similar to Yi Hyŏnbo’s sijo, which preserve the early form of the sijo genre. In the postscript to “Ŏbudan’ga” (Fisherman’s short songs), Yi Hyŏnbo explains his composition process and implies a relationship between his sijo and mandaeyŏp, which probably served as the foundation upon which the formal correspondence was built:

I shortened the already existing ten sijo⁵³ songs to create my five sijo songs and put these to the music called yŏp (葉), to be sung.⁵⁴

Yi Hyŏnbo’s use of the term yŏp deserves attention, though previous scholars have not commented upon it. This yŏp does not refer to a general unit, like a “piece,” but to a form of music by which Yi Hyŏnbo’s sijo poems were transformed into a form of song. Considering that no other yŏp music, such as chungdaeyŏp or saktaeyŏp, appeared at the time, this yŏp is probably mandaeyŏp. In terms of this musical background, the formal trait of Yi Hyŏnbo’s sijo, corresponding to the form of mandaeyŏp lyrics, arose. Consider onari in the style of mandaeyŏp in Kŭm hapchabo:⁵⁵

Is today a day?	o-na-ri	o-na-ri-na	(7)
Can every day be like today?	mae-i-re	o-na-ri-na	(7)
I’m afraid if it gets dark	chŏm-mŭ-di-do sae-di-do	o-na-ri	(10)
or if the day breaks.	sae-ri-na		(3)
Wish today could be every day!	mae-il-tang-sang-ŭi	o-na-ri o-so-sŏ	(11)

The division of the five lines above is based on the form that was put to mandaeyŏp in the score.⁵⁶ This form largely resembles that of the usual form of sijo, but its third line slightly differs. The third line of sijo is usually as long as the sum of the first and second lines, having four breath groups. In contrast, the third line of the song is shorter than the sum of the first and second lines and consists of three breath groups. ⁵⁷ Interestingly, the fifth line shows the same formal trait, consisting of three breath groups, and this coincidence seems to have relation to the structure of the mandaeyŏp music, in which the third passage is repeated in the fifth passage. This formal trait of the third line in onari also appears in Yi Hyŏnbo’s sijo, as shown in the following example:⁵⁸

Free of worry,	i-jung-e	si-rŭm-ŏp-sŭ-ni (8)
That’d be a fisherman’s life!	ŏ-bu-ŭi	saeng-ae-i-ro-da (8)
On a boat floating on the waves,	i-ryŏp-p’yŏn-ju-rŭl	man-’gyŏng-p’a-e
	ttŭi-wŏ-du-go (13)
As I’ve forgotten	in-se-rŭl (3)
this world, let the day pass me by!	ta-i-jŏt-kŏ-ni nal-ga-nŭn ju-rŭr-al-lya (12)

This sijo by Yi Hyŏnbo demonstrates the formal mandaeyŏp trait by which the third line is shorter than the sum of the first and second lines. In addition, the third line contains three breath groups as in mandaeyŏp, rather than four as in sijo. Other sijo poems in Yi Hyŏnbo’s Fishermen’s Short Songs are similar: in the second sijo, the third line contains twelve syllables, in the third sijo, ten syllables, and in the fourth sijo, thirteen syllables, and each of the second lines is divided into three breath groups.⁵⁹ These traits suggest that Yi Hyŏnbo’s sijo reflects the formal characteristics of sijo in its initial stage of development, which was influenced by mandaeyŏp lyrics and music.⁶⁰ This final piece of evidence demonstrates that the origin of sijo lies in mandaeyŏp, and that the form of sijo emerged and developed around the late fifteenth century.

4. CONCLUSION

Yang Tŏksu’s (1610) statement that the musical tune of mandaeyŏp was derived from the chinjak-style tune has drawn the attention of scholars for decades. Because mandaeyŏp has been accepted as the origin of musical forms that accompanied sijo, the time and process of the formation of mandaeyŏp were considered as especially important. Many believed mandaeyŏp to be derived from chinjak 3, but did not provide specific evidence of the relationship between the two compositions. Casting doubt on the prevailing assumption that focused on chinjak 3, this article investigated chinjak 1 instead, highlighting significant similarities between chinjak 1 and mandaeyŏp. The article has shown that mandaeyŏp is derived from chinjak 1’s taeyŏp and puyŏp sections, based on their shared, repetitive A–B–C–B–C structure and the similarity of the form and order of their melodic units.

The discovery of this relationship between mandaeyŏp and chinjak 1 resolves a long-standing dilemma, not only in the field of music but also in the field of literature, regarding the origin of sijo. Because mandaeyŏp shows concrete influences from chinjak 1 in Taeak hubo, which contains music compositions of King Sejo’s reign, we can infer that the time of derivation of mandaeyŏp is not far from Sejo’s time. Other literary evidence also supports this inference. It shows that mandaeyŏp scores did not emerge before King Sejo’s reign but continuously appeared after that time. Moreover, sijo poems in munjip, or literati’s private collections, began to emerge around that time, with formal characteristics influenced by mandaeyŏp. This consistent evidence clearly shows that the sijo form originated and developed under the influence of mandaeyŏp around the late fifteenth century.

Traditional Korean lyrical genres, such as sijo, kasa (歌辭), and Koryŏ kayo (高麗歌謠), were performed to the accompaniment of music. The emergence and development of these lyrical genres therefore relate closely to their music. Thus, interdisciplinary research between the fields of literature and music has particular relevance. Although many scholars have made great efforts in this direction, various fruitful research topics remain open, as shown by the previous lack of attention to chinjak 1 with regard to the origin of mandaeyŏp and sijo. A more detailed exploration of the relationship between traditional Korean music and literature may well result in a deeper understanding of both.