ORIENTAL ORIGIN OF THE BOW--INDIAN, CHINESE AND OTHER EASTERN BOWED
INSTRUMENTS.
In attempting to trace the use of the bow to its source we are
obliged to content ourselves with the generalized statement that it
is undoubtedly of oriental origin. Thus, that it _had_ an origin is
proved beyond "all possible, probable shadow of doubt."
But whether the first form of bowed instrument became extinct
prehistorically, or whether it still survives, as some suppose, in
the Ravanastron of India, is not easily determined.
My own personal belief in the extreme antiquity of the bow is such as
almost to justify the quaint statement of Jean Jacques Rousseau that
Adam played the viol in Paradise.
Of existing bowed instruments the Ravanastron (Fig. 4) most certainly
seems to be the oldest, as its structure is more primitive than any
other.
[Illustration: FIG. 4.]
Concerning this instrument legend runs to the effect that it was
invented by Ravana, who was king of Ceylon some 5,000 years prior to
the Christian era. How far this is accurate is impossible to say, for
the oldest names for the bow known to Sanskrit scholars only take us
back 1,500 to 2,000 years. Of these names it is interesting to note
that the Kona was evidently no more than a "friction rod" as, judging
from the early descriptions, it would appear to have been without
hair. Whether the Garika or Parivadas approached more nearly to the
modern idea of a bow I am unfortunately not in a position to state
with any degree of certainty.
The Ravanastron was, like the violin in its earliest stages, played
only by the inferior classes of India; a fact that, as Engel clearly
points out, makes it seem highly improbable that it was a Mohammedan
importation, despite some writers' assertions to that effect.
Undoubtedly it was introduced with Buddhism, from India into China,
where it became modified in unimportant details into the Ur-heen.
A curious point in connection with some oriental fiddles, such as the
Ur-heen, Uh-Ch'in (Fig. 5), Koka, etc., is that the hair of the bow
passes between the strings.
[Illustration: FIG. 5.]
Whether this circumstance is at all confirmatory of the supposition
that the rod of the Trigonon was passed between the strings would be
difficult to establish irrefutably; doubtless a logician could do so,
but I prefer making a simple statement of facts rather than forcing
them into agreement with any special theory; although I have plenty
of worthy precedents for such a proceeding, for I have observed that
most doubtful or disputed questions--the Bacon-Shakespeare
controversy, for instance--are handled in this manner.
What strikes one very forcibly on looking into the use of the bow in
the East is the great number of bowed instruments one finds. Thus in
India we have the Ravanastron in various forms; the Omerti (Fig. 6),
the Bengalese Sarinda, etc.
[Illustration: FIG. 6.]
In China, the Ur-heen, Uh-Ch'in, Saw-oo and Sawduang. In Siam, the
Saw-tai, etc. In Turkey and Arabia, the Kemangeh-a-gouz (Fig. 7),
Kemangeh-roumy, Rebab-esh-Sha'er (Fig. 8), and Rebab-el-maghanny,
also the more modern Gunibry.
[Illustration: FIG. 7.]
[Illustration: FIG. 8.]
In Persia there is also an instrument strongly resembling the Omerti
and Kemangeh in outline, called the Sitara (Fig. 9). Then there is a
primitive bowed instrument with three strings, known to the peasants
of Russia as the Goudok, which is no doubt an immediate descendant of
the three-stringed Rebab, and, more remotely, of the Ravanastron.
Abyssinia too, has its bowed instruments. In fact, the use of the bow
is universal in the "glorious Orient," from whence nearly all
products of western civilization are derived. In almost all cases
great antiquity is ascribed to these instruments. The very name
"Kemangeh-a-gouz," ancient in itself, can be roughly translated
"ancient-fiddle," thus showing that the Persians [the name is Persian
and bears out the Arab records that it came to them from Persia]
considered it then a relic of the past, and that it was a survival of
some still older instrument inherited, most likely from India. There
can be little doubt that Fetis was right in assuming this to have
been the Omerti, for, barring the long "tail-pin," the structure of
both is almost identical.
[Illustration: FIG. 9.]
The bows of all these instruments bear a strong resemblance to each
other, as is only to be expected where all are of the simplest
description. In the majority of cases the bow is merely a length of
cane with a bunch of horse-hair tied at each end in such a manner as
to pull the cane into a more or less pronounced curve. Those of the
Goudok and Sarinda (Fig. 10) are short, approach nearly to a
semi-circle, and are quite rigid.
[Illustration: FIG. 10.]
Those of the Ravanastron, Omerti, etc., are longer, and being more
slender, have a certain amount of flexibility, but it does not appear
that this latter qualification is sought for or considered
indispensable. On the other hand, the now nearly obsolete Kokiu of
Japan had a bow of about forty-five inches in length that was
extremely elastic. It was made in sections after the manner of a
fishing-rod, and the hair was tightened by the finger of the player,
as in some of the early viol bows of Europe.
The method of hairing in most cases amounts to the simplest way of
tying the hair on to the stick. Sometimes the hair is passed through
a slit and held in place by a knot. In other specimens it is attached
to a leather thong, and occasionally it is plugged into the open end
of a piece of bamboo (Fig. 11).
[Illustration: FIG. 11.]
The bows of the Saw-tai (Fig. 12), Uh-Ch'in, Koka and a few others
show a distinct advance in point of curve and adjustment of hair, and
strongly resemble the bow of the quaint Swedish Nyckelharpa in
present use (Fig. 13).
[Illustration: FIG. 12.]
[Illustration: FIG. 13.]
The bows of the Sitara (Fig. 9) and Saw-oo (Fig. 14), approach more
nearly to the European form. The drawings of the latter, however,
were made from highly ornate and elaborate specimens that may have
been affected by Western influence. But against this must be set the
religious conservatism of eastern nations. In many cases it would
amount to gross sacrilege to alter in any way the construction of
certain objects in daily use, so that we may take it generally that
the east of to-day differs very little from what it was, even several
thousand years ago, in such matters.
[Illustration: FIG. 14.]