Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T19:41:33.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unity and Disunity in Javanese Political and Religious Thought of the Eighteenth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

M. C. Ricklefs
M. C. Ricklefs
Affiliation:
Monash University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A central problem in both the political and the intellectual history of Java is the disparity between the ideal of a unified state and the historical reality of fragmented power and authority, between the image and the reality of pre-colonial Javanese political history. An investigation of views held by literati of the kingdom of Mataram before the middle years of the eighteenth century can elucidate this problem. Turning from historical-political to religious literature in Javanese may help to resolve it.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , October 1992 , pp. 663 - 678
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Zoetmulder, P. J., Kalangwan: A Survey of Old Javanese Literature (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1974), p. 342.Google Scholar

2 See Santoso, Soewito (ed. and transl.), Sutasoma: A Study of Javanese Wajrayana (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1975), pp. 578–9. I am grateful to Prof. P. J. Zoetmulder for his advice on the English translation of this passage.Google Scholar

3 Ensinck, J., ‘Sutasoma's teaching to Gajavaktra, the snake and the tigress (Tantular, Sutasoma kakavin 38.1–42.4)’, BKI vol. 130, nos 2–3 (1974), esp. pp. 202–7.Google Scholar

4 Heine-Geldern, Robert, Conceptions of State and Kingship in Southeast Asia (Ithaca: Southeast Asia Program Data Paper no. 18, 1963).Google Scholar

5 Moertono, Soemarsaid, State and Statecraft in Old Java: A Study of the Later Mataram Period, 16th to 19th Century (Revised edn, Ithaca: Modern Indonesia Project Publication no. 43, 1981), p. 40.Google Scholar

6 Soemardjan, Selo, ‘The kraton in the Javanese social structure’, in Soebadio, Haryati and du Marchie Sarvaas, Carine A. (eds), Dynamics of Indonesian History (Amsterdam, etc.: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1978), p. 225.Google Scholar

7 Anderson, Benedict R. O'G., ‘The idea of power in Javanese culture’, in Holt, Claire et al. (eds), Culture and Politics in Indonesia (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1972), pp. 1–69; see esp. p. 32.Google Scholar

8 Geertz, Clifford, Islam Observed: Religious Development in Morocco and Indonesia (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1968), pp. 36–9; quotation from p. 38.Google Scholar

9 It is worth saying that the scholars quoted in the preceding paragraph are largely ignorant of the primary sources for the Mataram period. I do not think that any of them has ever consulted VOC archival sources and doubt that, except for Moertono, they have much familiarity with babad literature.

10 Ricklefs, M. C., Jogjakarta under Sultan Mangkubumi, 1749–1792: A History of the Division of Java (London, etc.: Oxford University Press, 1974), pp. 23–4, 41–2.Google Scholar

11 Babad Kraton (British Library Add. MS 12320), f. 504v., referring to the time of Amangkurat II's death in AD 1703, mentions a sum of Sp.Rl. 1000 which was kaskayan ing Nata pribadil dudu wětuning prajal reyal muklis waul saking karingět Sang Nata (the private wealth of the king/ not the product of the kingdom:/ this modest amount of Reals/ was from the sweat of the king).

12 SeeRicklefs, , Jogjakarta, esp. ch. VII.Google Scholar

13 India Office Library MS IOL Jav. 36 (B); the text is published and translated in Ricklefs, M. C., Modern Javanese Historical Tradition: A Study of an Original Kartasura Chronicle and Related Materials (London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1978). On its date and provenance, see pp. 148–51. The passages discussed here are on pp. 100–5.Google Scholar

14 British Library Add. MSS 12320, ff. 503v.-568v.

15 Because the MS is misbound, the ff. are 367, 357, 355, 356. They are printed in their correct order in Ricklefs, Modern Javanese Historical Tradition, pp. 100–19.Google Scholar

16 Some passages are the same as in IOL Jav. 36(A), a Kartasura MS; others are the same as in the Surakarta Major Babad, a congruity likely to go back to shared Kartasura antecedents. See Ricklefs, M. C., ‘The evolution of Babad Tanah Jawi texts: In response to Day’, BKI vol. 135 no. 4 (1979), p. 447.Google Scholar

17 See the Surakarta Major Babad: Bale Pustaka, Babad Tanah Jawi (31 vols, Batawi Sentrum: Bale Pustaka, 1939–1941), vol. VII, p. 47; and IOL Jav. 36(A), f. 135v. This ritual is not described in the Babad Kraton account of Senapati's death on f. 185r.Google Scholar

18 Kraton, Babad, ff. 504r.-v., Canto 130 (Dhandhanggula): 42. … was karsaning Ywang Luhur/ yen nurbawatira angalih/ marang ing Kapurgěran/ Pangran ri[ng] karyeku/ tan ana wikan ing cahya/ iya amung Pangran Pugěr gěnti waris/ aměngku tanah Jawa. 43. Putra Kanjěng Pangeran Dipati/ lamun kongsiya maděg Narendra/ pan ratu wěwěla bael …Google Scholar

19 In Babad Kraton, f. 505v., Pugěr stands behind Amangkurat III who is seated on the throne (Dhampar Mas) and calls upon the people of all the kingdom to recognize his installation of the new monarch: eh sakeh wong Kartasural pranayaka moncaněgara pasisir padha angestrenanal Lamun suteng ulun Ki Dipatil ulun jujung umaděg Narendral den padhal nagastokěn kabeh. The Patih Sumabrata objects that this is a redundant act, for Amangkurat III is already king.

20 Babad Kraton, ff. 513v.–515r. A parallel version with some variations is in the Major Babad:Pustaka, Bale, Babad Tanah Jawi, vol. XVI, pp. 52–5.Google Scholar

21 Babad Kraton, f. 517r. This seems to contradict Anderson's idea that ‘traditional’ Javanese viewed power as ‘neither legitimate nor illegitimate.… as something … without inherent moral implications as such’; see his ‘Idea of power’, p. 8. See also n.27 below.Google Scholar

22 Babad Kraton, ff. 517v.–518r. See also Moertono, , State and Statecraft, p. 35.Google Scholar

23 Babad Kraton, f. 523r.

24 On ff. 579r.-v. It is interesting to note that in this version, VOC officers address Amangkurat III as Gusti Sri Narendra, whereas in the Company's own sources he is denied royal titles.

25 See Ricklefs, M. C., ‘The missing pusakas of Kartasura, 1705–37’, in Sutrisno, Sulastin et al. (eds), Bahasa-Sastra-Budaya: Ratna Manikan Untaian Persembahan kepada Prof. Dr. P. J. Zoetmulder (Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press, 1985), pp. 601–30.Google Scholar

26 Anderson, E.g., ‘Idea of power’, p. 12;Google ScholarHeine-Geldern, , Conceptions, p. 10;Google ScholarSelosoemardjan, , Social Changes in Jogjakarta (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962), p. 18.Google Scholar

27 The classic case of tyranny in Javanese history is the reign of Amangkurat I (1646–77). Note Babad ing Sangkala's comments upon this reign, e.g. ‘As if dimmed was the lustre of the kingdom’ (Ricklefs, Tradition, pp. 52–3), or ‘All were subjected to the tyranny of their lord’ (ibid., pp. 70–1). The same text says of Surapati II that ‘All his father's women/ … were dishonoured/ by Ki Adipati;/ therefore his supernatural powers disappeared’ (ibid., pp. 112–13). Of Pakubuwana I in 1719 the text says ‘The destruction of Java now began/ with the death of the Sayid, for he was shot/ upon the wish of the king./ There were many who said/ that they were shocked that he was killed’ (ibid., pp. 136–7). Such comments reflect moral judgements upon unrighteous rulers, against whom resistance is thereby justified.

28 Cf. Babad ing Sangkala's description of the fall of Mataram to Trunajaya's rebels in 1677: ‘The soldiers of Mataram/ all lost their supernatural power; and the princes/ their hearts were like women's,/ having no courage, terrified./ It was the wish of God’ (Ricklefs, Tradition, pp. 84–5); or of the fall of Kartasura to Pakubuwana I: ‘it was the wish of God/ that Kartasura should fall’ (ibid., pp. 104–5).

29 Nijmegen: J. J. Berkhout, 1935.Google Scholar

30 See Pigeaud, Theodore G. Th., Literature of Java: Catalogue raisonné of Javanese Manuscripts in the Library of the University of Leiden and other Public Collections in the Netherlands (4 vols; The Hague: Martinus Nyhoff; Leiden: Bibliotheca Universitatis Lugduni Batavorum; Leiden University Press, 1967–1980), vol. II, pp. 27–8. Although it is undated, cod. 1796 is clearly a companion volume to cod. 1795: they are both written on Dutch paper and employ the same paleography and binding.Google Scholar

31 Text in Zoetmulder, Pantheisme, p. 102;Google Scholarmy translation differs only slightly from Zoetmulder's on p. 105.Google Scholar

32 Text in ibid., p. 111; Zoetmulder's translation is on pp. 116–17.

33 Johns, A. H. (ed. and transl.), The Gift Addressed to the Spirit of the Prophet (Canberra: The Australian National University, 1965), pp. 74–7.Google Scholar On the provenance of the MS, see Ricklefs, M. C., ‘A note on Professor John's “Gift addressed to the spirit of the Prophet”’, BKI vol. 129, nos 2–3 (1973), pp. 347–9.Google Scholar

34 Drewes, G. W. J. (ed. and transl.), Directions for Travellers on the Mystic Path: Zaskariyyā' al-Ansārī's Kitāb Fath al-Rahmān and its Indonesian Adaptations (VKI vol. 81; The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1977), pp. 78–9.Google Scholar On al-Junayd's doctrines, see ibid., pp. 35–6; Schimmel, Annemarie, Mystical Dimensions of Islam (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1975), pp. 57–9.Google Scholar See also Zoetmulder's discussion of al-Ghazzālī's doctrine of being in Pantheisme, pp. 28–9.Google Scholar

35 Drewes, , Directions, pp. 60–1.Google Scholar

36 ibid., pp. 54–5.

37 ibid., pp. 60–1. One finds this idea widely in Javanese mystical literature. Museum Pusat BG 194, a MS from Panaraga (see Poerbatjaraka, , ‘Lijst der Javaan-sche handschriften in de boekerij van het Kon. Bat. Genootschap’, Koninklijk Bataviaasch Genootchap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen Jaarboek 1933 [Bandoeng: A.C. Nix & Co., 1933], p. 358),Google Scholar contains a nice statement of this doctrine: ‘For there is no difference/ between worshipper and worship:/ both are he alone,/ as the being of the universe/ cannot be divided…’ Drewes, G. W. J. ‘Javanese poems dealing with or attributed to the saint of Bonan’, BKI vol. 124, no. 2 (1968), p. 225.Google Scholar See also Drewes, G. W. J. (ed. and transl.), The Admonitions of Seh Bari: A 16th Century Javanese Muslim Text Attributed to the Saint of Bonan (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1969), pp. 82–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 The text is discussed in Ricklefs, Tradition, pp. 153–4.Google Scholar

39 The Cabolek text is somewhat obscure about why Bima Suci was not often kept. Leiden cod. 6373, p. 80,Google Scholar says ‘Awis-awis sěnadyan rumiyinl awis wontěm pun paman tan darbel Cakraningrat bapakipun nguni/ langkung rěměn kawi/ Paněmbahan sěpuhl (Canto XII:)/ Paněmbahan seda kapal/ prandene botěn nyimpěni/ namung Rama Bratayuda/ tan asimpěn Bimasuci/ awis kang rěměn sangking/ Bima Suci sampenipun/ Pangeran Erucakra/ botěn darbe Bima Suci/ mung rahsane ngelmu dumeh tan mawi prang/ sami kawi-kawi jarwal něnggih Sěrat Bima Suci/ amung raose kewala…’. See also cod. 2325, p. 216. The parallel passage is found at pp. 75–6 of the printed text: [Sěrat Cabolek] … anggitanipun adbi-dalěm bujongga Kraton ing nagari Surakarta Adiningrat… katurun Kangjěng Raden Adipati Panji Suryakusuma … Kadaměl lěrěs dening Wědana Undersětan Magětan Raden Panji Jayasubrata (Sěmawis: Ge Se Te van Dorěp [G. C. T. van Dorp], 1885); this reveals, incidentally, that Jayasubrata's ‘corrections’ were not always accurate, for Paněmbahan seda kapal, an unequivocal reference to Paněmbahan Cakraningrat III who was killed on a VOC ship in 1718, is altered erroneously in the printed text to Sri Nata Seda Karapyak, i.e. Paněmbahan Seda ing Krapyak (d.1613).Google Scholar A brief summary of the Cabolek text is available in Vreede, A. C., Catalogus van de Javaansche en Madoereesche handschriften der Leidsche Universiteits-bibliotheek (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1892), p. 321.Google Scholar The edition of Cabolek in Soebardi, S. (ed. and transl.), The Book of Cabolèk: A Critical Edition with Introduction, Translation and Notes; A Contribution to the Study of the Javanese Mystical Tradition (Bibliotheca Indonesica 10; The Hague: Martinus Nyhoff, 1975), omits the passage discussed here.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a detailed discussion of Dewa Ruci and its antecedents, see Poerbatjaraka, , ‘Dé;wa-roetji’, Djåwå vol. 20, no. 1 (01 1940), pp. 5–55, which also contains references to other relevant publications.Google Scholar

40 E.g. the author of Babad ing Sangkala of AD 1738 claims to have worked with kidung and kakwin texts (Ricklefs, , Tradition, pp. 16–17, 152–3Google Scholar); and another Karatasura MS, Berlin Staatsbibliothek Or. fol.402, dated AJ 1661 [AD 1736–37] contains (pp. 15–53) the Old Javanese Paniti Sastra with Modern Javanese paraphrases and explanations. This MS was owned by a particularly important courtier named Png. Arya Purbaya. Until 1737 he had been known as R. Dm. Urawan, under which name he plays a central role in Sěrat Cabolek; it is he who tries to find a copy of Bima Suci. He was named second patih in 1737 but was exiled in 1738 at the urging of the VOC for his anti-VOC activities. The scribe of the MS was Ki Asmaradana, a mantri lěbět of some consequence whose career can be reconstructed at least in part from references in other Javanese and Dutch sources. He was killed in the Javanese assault on the VOC garrison at Kartasura in July 1741. This MS is described in Pigeaud, Theodore G. Th., Javanese and Balinese Manuscripts and Some Codices Written in Related Idioms Spoken in Java and Bali: Descriptive Catalogue (Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, vol. XXXI; Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag GMBH, 1975), pp. 226–7.Google Scholar

41 Soebardi, , The Book of Cabolèk, p. 114.Google Scholar My translation differs slightly from Soebardi's. The extant MSS of Cabolek are apparently no older than the nineteenth century, so the possibility that this passage reflects views held only after the Kartasura period must be acknowledged.

42 Zoetmulder, , Pantheisme, p. 164.Google Scholar

43 ibid., p. 167.

44 See the discussion in Moertono, , State and Statecraft, pp. 14–26.Google Scholar For further references see the index in Zoetmulder, Pantheisme, under ‘kaoela-goesti’.

45 IOL Jav. 83 (IO 3102) (A), p. 8: aja angroro tingal/ jěněnge kawula gusti/ pan kawula noranana/ kawula jěněnge napi/ mapan boyandarbeni/ mapan sajatine suwung/ pan kaganten Yang Sukma/ wěruhe maring Yang Widi/ polah tingkah tingkahe Allah kang murba. The text is taken from a transcription done by Mr Soegiarto, the India Office copy of which is numbered IOR MSS Eur. D.518, ‘Manuscript uit Londen van India Office Library no. 3102 Shattariya tracts’.Google Scholar

46 See State and Statecraft, pp. 14–15, 26;Google ScholarSoemardjan, Selo, ‘Kraton’, p. 226.Google ScholarAnderson, , ‘Idea of power’, p. 47,Google Scholar however, takes the view that ‘traditional thought’ did not allow for ‘any from of social contract’. Neither of these viewpoints is quite consistent with the historical evidence as I see it, both being too theoretical in character. There was in fact a form of social contract, but kawula-gusti ideas were merely an ideological frosting on it.

47 See the discussion in Basham, A. L., The Wonder that was India: A Survey of the Culture of the Indian Subcontinent before the Coming of the Muslims (New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1959), p. 126.Google Scholar

48 Gonda, J., ‘The Javanese version of the Bhagavadgītā’, TBG vol. 75 (1935), pp. 36–82.Google Scholar

49 I am grateful for the advice of Dr S. O. Robson on this point.

50 Note the comment in Sěrat Cabolek cited in n.39 above, saying that Cakraningrat III owned MSS (by implication in Old Javanese) of Rāmāyana and Bhāratayuddha.

51 Gonda, , ‘Bhagavadgītā’ pp. 57–8.Google Scholar

52 This argument also sheds further light upon the crisis of legitimation in the later eighteenth century, when the partition of the kingdom between Surakarta and Yogyakarta became rigid and institutionalized. This meant not merely that there were two kings, but also that there were permanently two. So the temporal realm was characterized by duality as it should have been, but no longer by its properly concomitant state of flux. This suggests further subtleties of analysis not adequately reflected in my Jogjakarta under Sultan Mangkubumi (see especially pp. 33–5).Google Scholar

53 See the sources cited in notes 4–8 above.