negara kertagama | Java | Poetry

April 25, 2016 | Author: Anonymous | Category: Java
Share Embed


Short Description

1960-63 Java in the 14th century: A study in cultural history: The Nāgara-Kěrtāgama by Rakawi. Land. Stuart 1995 Deś...

Description

Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde Vol. 167, no. 2-3 (2011), pp. 322-332 URL: http://www.kitlv-journals.nl/index.php/btlv URN:NBN:NL:UI:10-1-101394 Copyright: content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License ISSN: 0006-2294

DICK VAN DER MEIJ

Kakawin Sutasoma and Kakawin Nāgara Kr�tāgama Kate O’Brien, Sutasoma: The ancient tale of a Buddha-Prince from 14th century Java by the poet Mpu Tantular. A translation in English and study by Kate O’Brien based on the transcription of a manuscript in the Old Javanese language collected and arranged by P.J. Zoetmulder. Bangkok: Orchid Press, 2009, x + 332 pp. ISBN: 9789745241077. Price: USD 80.95 (hardback). Mpu Tantular, Kakawin Sutasoma. Penerjemah: Dwi Woro Retno Mastuti dan Hastho Bramantyo. Depok: Komunitas Bambu, 2009, xxiv + 539 pp. ISBN 9793731559. Price: IDR 85,000 (paperback). Cok Sawitri, Sutasoma. Jakarta: Kakilangit Kencana, 2009, 467 pp. ISBN 9786028556132. Price: IDR 55,000 (paperback). I Ketut Riana, Kakawin Dēśa Warn�nana uthawi Nāgara Kr�tāgama: Masa keemasan Majapahit. Jakarta: Penerbit Buku Kompas, 2009, xxiv + 483 pp. ISBN 9789797098. Price: IDR 85,000 (paperback). Center for the Study of Religion and Culture Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University, Jakarta [email protected]

There are many forms of literature in Bali. Unfortunately, many of them are virtually ignored by Indonesian and international scholarship alike. Traditional poetic forms such as geguritan and especially kidung receive precious little attention; the number of edited and translated geguritan can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and the same holds true of kidung (the last edition being the Tantri Kediri by Soekatno). This is a pity, as the literary division usually made between these texts based on their metric intricacies does not necessarily reflect literary practices in Bali, where geguritan, kidung and kakawin are seen in a pulsating continuum rather than as distinct literary products in need of distinct study and appreciation. Far outnumbering editions of geguritan and kidung, kakawin come out favourably. With the three books discussed here, no less than six kakawin ‘editions’ have seen the light in the last 15 years, the other



Review essays

323

three being the Kakawin Pārthāyan�a (Creese 1990), Kakawin Bhomāntaka (Teeuw and Robson 2004), and Kakawin Arjuna Wiwāha (Robson 2008). Interestingly, the number of Indonesian scholars versed in a local language other than their own is small and they mostly only study local literatures from their own region (usually in some sort of government paid project or other). This is especially so for Balinese geguritan, whereas kakawin, probably because they are considered beautiful and difficult, have entered the world of international, including Indonesian, scholarship much more frequently. Another trend worth noting is that the philological tradition seems to be changing. Rather than painstakingly comparing all the available manuscripts of a text, nowadays a limited choice is made between them and the other manuscripts are ignored. The books under discussion use almost no philology at all. Both editions of the Sutasoma are based on already existing transliterations, and the Nāgara Kr�tāgama edition has not been made on the basis of manuscript comparisons. This means that despite the availability of many catalogues of manuscripts, this has not led to greater use of manuscripts! In the kakawin world, this trend was already in evidence in the text editions of the Kakawin Bhomāntaka (2004) and the Kakawin Arjuna Wiwāha, where small numbers of manuscripts were used and the choice of which was moreover insufficiently explained (Van der Meij 2006, 2009). There are two versions of the Sutasoma, one consisting of 147 and the other 148 cantos. O’Brien mentions this in note 18 to the introduction, but it remains unclear what has happened. O’Brien has not used any manuscripts, but relied on an anonymous transliteration made for and probably under the critical eyes of Prof. Piet (not Peter) Zoetmulder, and no information is provided on which original manuscript was consulted (p. x, 4). Mastutu/ Bramantyo used the transliteration made by Soewito Santoso, which has 148 cantos, as does the Balinese version published by the Dinas Pendidikan Dasar, Propinsi Daerah Tingkat Satu, Bali which, characteristically, does not mention its manuscript source. O’Brien provides the translation of the extra canto at cantos 124a and 124b. Both editors of the Sutasoma fail to provide a justification for their choice of ‘manuscript’ and also do not mention why they refrained from using any other manuscripts. Perhaps we should read in this light O’Brien’s remarks that ‘the philological aspects of the original text lay outside the parameters of my study’ (p. 7). Neither O’Brien nor Mastuti/Bramantyo mention the existence of the Balinese Dinas version, and they pay precious little attention to manuscripts to begin with. They gloss over national (Indonesian National Library, Library of the University of Indonesia) and international manuscript collections (especially that of Leiden University Library) that contain manuscripts of the Sutasoma, and collections on Bali have also been ignored completely. That manuscripts are also kept in private collections, as can easily be seen from the

324

Review essays

‘Proyek Tik’, has also escaped attention, as this project has again been completely ignored. Incidentally, neither O’Brien nor Mastuti/Bramantyo show what these manuscripts look like. Photographs of the entire manuscript Riana used are added at the end of his book, but one would need a magnifying glass to consult them because of the size of the illustrated lontar leaves. Kakawin and kakawin meters Kakawin are Old Javanese poems in Indian or Indian derived meters. Many are considered adaptations of Indian sources, thus causing scholars to turn much of their attention to the Indian subcontinent for information and to look for the ‘original sources’ of the kakawin. This is, however, only true for kakawin that stem from ancient Java, most of which have been preserved in Bali. Famous kakawin of this category include the Kakawin Rāmāyan�a, Bharatayuddha, Arjuna Wiwāha, Bhomāntaka, Smaradahana, Gat�otkacāśraya, Śiwarātrikalpa, Sumanasāntaka, and the Sutasoma and Nāgarakr�tāgama kakawin discussed here. We should bear in mind that in the past many kakawin have been composed on Bali (see Creese 1999), and the last couple of years have seen a proliferation of new kakawin production (Van der Meij 2006). Despite Bali’s crucial role in the preservation of old kakawin and in the production of new ones, the role of the Balinese is usually not given the importance it deserves, and the present books do not tell differently. It is remarkable that kakawin are often seen in the light of what they can teach us about the history and literary conventions of ancient Java, or about their relations to Indian ‘originals’, rather than considered part of past and present elements of Balinese culture (see especially Creese 1999; Van der Meij 2006, 2009; Acri 2010). Notwithstanding the fact that kakawin have come down to us thanks to the many activities of the Balinese, their understanding of the contents of kakawin and their practices of the use of these texts have still been insufficiently studied. For instance, no study has yet been conducted about the kakawin maarti texts from Bali, where manuscripts contain both the Old Javanese texts and surrounding Balinese glosses. These texts might teach us much of the Old Javanese textual traditions on Bali and about the way Balinese knowledge of Old Javanese changed over time. Incidentally, the modern computer-produced bilingual Old-Javanese – Balinese editions are also worth studying in this context. Let us start with some general remarks on the books first, before we turn to matters of translation and presentation. Kakawin meters are usually not indicated in the manuscripts and to decipher the meters used is not easy. O’Brien and Mastuti/Bramantyo pay virtually no attention to this aspect, if any at all, and do not present the meters of the individual cantos. O’Brien indicates the meters in the samples of the Old Javanese text she presents in



Review essays

325

Appendix 1. It would have helped the readers’ appreciation of the literary value of the Sutasoma if more information about kakawin had been added. The meters used in the Sutasoma are not difficult to find. The bilingual, twovolume Old-Javanese-Balinese edition of the Sutasoma in Balinese script mentioned above provides a neat list of the meters used, and if this edition were unavailable, Zoetmulder has also provided the meters in his Kalangwan (English edition, 1974, Indonesian edition 1983). Riana differs from O’Brien and Mastuti/Bramantyo by providing the names and the structures of the meters in the Nāgara Kr�tāgama and in which cantos they are used. The Old Javanese texts of the Sutasoma O’Brien explains that she had hoped to present the story without the ‘burden of annexing the Old Javanese text’ (p. 7.). Now, I also used to think that a translation should be enough, and that it is unnecessary to add an almost inaccessible text in an almost unknown language. I find that my ideas on this have changed over time, and I dearly missed the Old Javanese. She decided to omit the Old Javanese because her book is not concerned with the philological aspects of the original text. This remark gives rise to various questions. How can one hope to translate an Old Javanese text, based on one transcript, without being constantly ‘burdened’ by inconsistencies in spelling and uncertainties about specific readings and without being involved in some sort of philological exercise? That there is no Old Javanese text also makes it difficult (for experts) to appreciate her translation. Part of the translation can be ‘checked’ because 354 stanzas of the Old Javanese text have been included in the book as appendix 1. As this is almost 30 percent of the text, perhaps the rest might have been included as well. O’Brien calls the Old Javanese passages she added ‘significant’ but fails to explain what is so significant about them (p. 8). Mastuti/Bramantyo present the Old Javanese text flanked by their Indonesian translation, and their work can thus be checked against the original. Riana also gives the Old Javanese text next to his translation. Translation After all, there are still plenty of question marks in the dictionary, or words glossed too broadly to help in particular contexts. (Robson 2001:42-3.)

Translating a kakawin is not easy. Stuart Robson has elaborated on the ways and possibilities of translating kakawin in his article of 2001 in the Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde. Nevertheless, a kakawin must be translated elegantly and poetically and the story has to be understandable. The atmosphere

326

Review essays

in the story should also not jump too much, especially not when it is probably not supported by the original Old Javanese. O’Brien presents what is in her words a ‘more up-to-date translation in order to facilitate deeper enquiry into the mystical philosophies so important within it’ (p. 4). I do not know what up-to-date means in this context, but she probably means that since Zoetmulder’s Old-Javanese – English Dictionary appeared in 1982, there was need to review Soewito Santoso’s translation. Humbly, she states that ‘Under these circumstances translation treads a tenuous path indeed, quite often little more than an exercise in subjective interpretation’ (p. 5). Of course, any translation is subjective and the exercise is indeed tenuous. I must confess that I am not particularly happy with O’Brien’s translation because it is unpoetic, dull and does in no way reflect the beauty of the original. As happens so often in kakawin translations, for incomprehensible reasons, scholarship (or what is understood as scholarship) takes precedence over aesthetically pleasing translations. Let us take a look at a few instances of the various translations of the Sutasoma and see where they differ. The quotation starting this paragraph becomes acute in some instances and I have the impression that especially terms for feelings and what emotions the text evokes may be in need of rethinking. Canto 89-3 Mangkana manis i manis nirāmaca palambang amuwuhi langö, Śrī Jinatanu sira hārs�ajāmuji tĕkap nira kawi dahatĕn, Cumbu sumarasah asung sĕpah ri waja pangrĕn�a nira wĕkasan, Sambyangarĕki pipi tan bĕsur tinikĕlan halis asĕmu madhu.

O’Brien’s translation (p. 98) reads Thus is was sweetness on sweetness as she read her poem, increasing its beauty, The incarnation of Jina (prince) was delighted and full of praise for her as a poet, Love spread about them and finally he passed betel quid to her to show his pleasure with her, At the same time kissing her cheek, mindful of being frowned at-which seemed like honey.

Soewito Santoso’s version (1975:392) is equally mawkish: Thus the loveliness of her recitation of the poem deepened his feelings of love. The incarnation of Jina gladly praised her great skill in composing poems, and so to please her, he embraced her tightly and passed her chewed betel from mouth to mouth, as he kissed her cheeks, paying no heed to her angry look [which to him] was like honey.



Review essays

327

I am puzzled here with both translations. The scene is one of lovemaking and joy after Sutasoma and Candrawati have been married, so why is Candrawati angry at being caressed and kissed by her husband? The Old Javanese word used for this is tinikĕlan which Zoetmulder (1982:2007) translates as: ‘To break (repeatedly), to frown at, scowl at, be cross with’ from the stem tikĕl ‘broken (of something straight), broken in two, with a sharp bend or break (in a straight line, esp. of the line of the brows (when cross or angry)’. I wonder if we should consider this differently, and by visualizing the prince kissing the princess, note that this extreme close-up perspective would make her eyebrows seem to blur together and that that might please him. Or even more likely, that the princess’s sweetness refers not to her eyebrows but to the kissing. I would suspect her to be just as jubilant as Semele in Händels opera of the same name, when she sings Endless Pleasure Endless Love as she enjoys Jupiter’s heavenly bliss. I agree that we might not only want that ‘the translator’s work must be heard as poetry’ (Robson 2001:43), but I would feel that we should perhaps also experience what is actually going on in the text. Another instance of this is canto 30-8 which reads: Triwikrâmanung makapanghad�anta, tangan catur meww-iwu sangkhya ghora, śirah susun sapta matumpa-tumpa, haneka sewu lwir ikang matâkweh.

O’Brien (p. 42) renders this: Or is it Triwikrama who serves as your support: Thousands of terrible four-arms, Seven rows of heads, one on top of the other, A thousand of them, each of them having many eyes.

In note 81 she explains Triwikrama as ‘(“He with the three strides”) an epithet for the dwarf incarnation of Wis�n�u when he tricked Bali-a demon king [...]’. Now I fail to see why Gajawaktra would be afraid of a dwarf. Soewito Santoso (1975:220) seems to capture it better: Is it your Triwikrama form you rely upon, Four-armed with thousands and thousands of terrible weapons with seven heads heaped one upon the other, with thousands of eyes, each differing from the other.

In Old Javanese texts – and also in wayang – fragile heroes can transform themselves into frightening giants, and this is called their Triwikrama form. I thus

328

Review essays

think that this is what is referred to here. Some translations are also curious, again presumably because of insufficient understanding of what is going on. Canto 8, stanza 7 line 4 reads: sahojar ira wedaśāstra karĕngö pangimur-imur ire nareśwara. O’Brien: ‘They were reciting together from sacred literature for the king to hear as a means of distraction’ (p. 25). Mastuti/Bramantyo translate it in a similar way. Now, I can’t imagine that sacred literature is used merely to distract the king. I would think that this literature was recited to help elevate the king to a higher level and to assist him in seeking inspiration to come to terms with his intense grief at the disappearance of his son, Sutasoma. At times, the translations of Mastuti/Bramantyo and O’Brien do not agree. For instance, canto 25-1 lines 1 and 2: Ndan sira sang ks�inatriya tatan hana kahalĕp irān jugenaka, bheda sakeng nr�patyahulunang bhuwana siwinĕn ing jagat kabeh. In O’Brien’s translation the ksatriya and the king differ: ‘And for one born of warrior-lineage, there is no ideal “beauty” more preferable. It is different for a king – he should be lord of the world, reigning over the whole earth’ (p. 37, italics mine). But in Mastuti/Bramantyo’s Indonesian translation they are the same: ‘Sekarang, Pangeran, keelokan atau kepuasan seorang ksatria, tidaklah berbeda dengan seorang raja yang memerintah dunia dan diabdi oleh para rakyatnya’, Now, my Prince, the beauty or satisfaction of a ksatria do not differ from those of a king who rules the world and who is attended to by his subject (p. 81, translation and italics mine). This version is consistent with Soewito Santoso’s (1975:204, italics mine): ‘Now, my prince, beauty or contentment for a ks�atriya is no different from that of a king ruling the world and served by all his people’. Mastuti/Bramantyo sometimes fail to keep the story in mind. They translate canto 2-1, line 4: into Indonesian as ‘Sang Raja sangat gembira hatinya melihat penampakan putranya yang lebih indah daripada putranya yang sudah-sudah’ (The King was overjoyed to see that his son was more handsome than his previous children) (p. 9). Since the king only had one child, comparing Sutasoma to his other offspring is quite a feat! I believe we still await the final translation of the Kakawin Sutasoma. The Sutasoma is a very interesting kakawin. It shows perfectly how Sivaism and Buddhism blended in the Old Javanese world. It also shows that tantric Buddhism was a known current of Buddhism in ancient Java, and that the way Buddhism and Sivaism merged was an important element in the religious make-up of the island. The way O’Brien links the Sutasoma with the mandala as found in Tibet is interesting, and her detailed comparison of the Sutasoma with the Sang Hyang Kamahāyānan Mantranaya and Sang Hyang Kamahāyānikan is extremely important. She expertly shows that the Kakawin Sutasoma did not exist in Java in isolation from other texts, and her efforts in intertextuality are laudable. I only wonder why she never explains why she went to look for illumination of the text in Tibetan Tantrism without wondering whether or not this tantrism also existed in Bali, where the text was pre-



Review essays

329

served all this time. Her elaborations of the Tibetan mandala are important to show that Old Javanese Buddhism does not exist in isolation of Buddhism in other places, but it is remarkable that no pictures of mandala exist in Bali. This is the more remarkable because Bali has a vibrant visual culture, and mandala would have been no problem for the Balinese. Also, mandala as such have not been preserved in Java. Cok Sawitri’s Sutasoma It may be useful to mention another publication about Sutasoma. Cok Sawitri’s novel differs fundamentally from the Kakawin Sutasoma, as it highlights the role of Sutasoma’s adversary Jayantaka, the King of Ratnakanda. It is an interesting novel in that it highlights the ways noble kings and princes should behave, and can easily be read as directly criticizing present-day Indonesian realities. It makes a good companion to the kakawin as it explains things not elaborated in the kakawin and also makes fine reading as an independent work. The Indonesian language used is sometimes unusual and her punctuation rather extraordinary. Although the novel attempts to give more ordinary humanity to the characters – in contrast to the kakawin, which does not – it does not wholly manage to avoid presenting flat characters. The interesting difference with the kakawin is that Jayantaka’s acts are not inspired by ill will, but rather by compassion with his subjects. Nāgara Kr�tāgama The Nāgara Kr�tāgama has been studied often. In 1972, Supomo remarked: ‘Because of its importance for the study of Javanese history, the Nagarakrtagama, which probably was not considered an important work in those days, has been edited and published no less than three times so far, by Brandes (1902), Kern (1919) and Pigeaud (1960-1963) respectively’ (Supomo 1972:281). Translations have so far been made into Dutch (Brandes 1902; Kern 1919), English (Pigeaud 1960-63; Robson 1995), Russian (Săub 1992) and Indonesian (Slamet Muljana 1953, 1979, 2006), and is now presented with a new Indonesian translation by I Ketut Riana. The text is apparently popular and important so that the need is felt for updated editions and translations as time goes by. This edition presents the text in Balinese/Old Javanese script with a transliteration. Although apparently important, there is no Balinese edition in Old Javanese with a facing Balinese translation on the market. This means that it does not belong to the core texts present-day Balinese use for their mabasan/pepaosan reading sessions. The book seems an attempt to redress this situation by the

330

Review essays

way it presents the text in Balinese script, transcription, and in translation, and it may thus easily find its way to a general Balinese audience. That it was published in Jakarta by Kompas is strange, as one would have expected the publication to be in Bali. But since the text highlights the East Javanese Kingdom of Majapahit, it is of great interest. In contrast to O’Brien and Mastuti/Bramantyo, Riana provides a neat list of all the thirteen manuscripts of the Nāgara Kr�tāgama known to him (p. 471). His list is curious, as it also contains edited versions and paper copies listed under the heading Naskah Lontar (Palm Leaf Manuscripts). His list is remarkable also because it is a mixture of a chronological presentation of editions (Brandes 1902; Kern 1919 and a transliteration (turunan?) of his work made in 1977, a list of lontars (refreshing as it lists the manuscripts in Bali first) and ends in mentioning ‘Nagara Kretagama Leyden University Library’ no more information provided. As usual, the many transcriptions of manuscripts in Bali made in the Hooykaas/Ketut Sangka ‘Proyek Tik’ programme are ignored. Conclusion If we compare O’Brien’s book with that of Mastuti/Brahmantyo the difference is enormous. The amount of time O’Brien has spent to understand the text and fully to grasp its meaning is astonishing when compared to the others who offer little explanations. The introduction to the text that Mastuti/Bramantyo offer is shallow, full of mistakes and insufficient to herald an important text like the Kakawin Sutasoma. This is clearly a missed chance. The translation they offer is readable and pleasant, but often lacks accuracy and often follows Soewito Santoso’s interpretation faithfully. A translation without accompanying Old Javanese text is a risk. The accuracy of translations cannot be checked, and this is a pity. I understand that the inclusion of the entire Old Javanese text would make a publication costly, but the inclusion of an accompanying CDrom with the text would not make the book much more difficult to produce, or more expensive for that matter. The edition of the Nāgara Kr�tāgama is the most interesting for teaching purposes, as it provides the text in Balinese characters, Latin transcription and Indonesian translation. The exemplary additional information on the Sutasoma O’Brien provides is a good example of how these kinds of books should be produced. It puts an otherwise difficult text in a much wider cultural and religious environment and thus elevates the text to the level it deserves. Mastuti/Brahmantyo’s work is disappointing in this respect. The fact that O’Brien (p. 1) ‘doubts that anything extraneous exists in this tale’ attests to the proper attitude she has towards the text. If we do not understand something, the fault lies not in the



Review essays

331

text but in our lack of understanding, or, in her words: ‘Therefore, I would venture to say that if anything still exists within the tale that seems without purpose, it is because we do not yet understand what the poet intended by its inclusion’ (p. 1). For me she need not tentatively ‘venture to say’ this; she is absolutely right! Her criticism of Zoetmulder in this matter is therefore apt. She also states that whatever clarity she can bring by way of explanation will only represent the ‘tip of the iceberg’. This sharply contrasts with Zoetmulder who dismissed much of the story, and by so doing showed little respect for the kakawin. That she calls the Nāgara Kr�tāgama ‘quasi-historical’ is also refreshing (p. 3). In the absence of other sources, we are so much inclined to attribute the little we have with probably undeserved reliability. Her remark on consistency in the spelling of the Old Javanese and Sanskrit – ‘a logistic nightmare’ – is ever so true (p. 7). It continually surprises me when what should be a detail in scholarship turns into an insurmountable problem. Some curious mistakes I do not understand. The Rāmāyan�a does not have 26 cantos but 278 divided over 26 sargas (chapters); thus the terms sarga and canto have been confused (O’Brien p. 11). And the real struggle in the text is not yet clear. Is it that Buddha has to conquer Śiwa in his form of Kāla (basically the Lord of Time and thus our eternal mortal enemy), so that after having dealt with all temptations, time also has no further significance? Why are the gods in the text present both as gods and as incarnations at the same time, but Buddha not? Is it that Buddha, having been a human being, can be either an incarnation or reside in heaven, but not both, as the gods apparently can (see canto 132/10 where Wimona suddenly recalls that he was an incarnation of Kāla on earth)? Questions remain and it is hoped that the Sutasoma will receive more attention in the future. References Acri, Andrea 2010 ‘Review of Stuart Robson, Arjuna Wiwāha: The marriage of Arjuna of Mpu Kan�wa’, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 166:146-52. Brandes, J.L.A. 1902 Nâgarakrětâgama: Lofdicht van Prapanjtja op Koning Rasadjanagara, Hajam Wuruk, van Madjapahit. Batavia: Landsdrukkerij, ’s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff. [Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen 54-1.] Creese, Helen 1998 Pārthāyan�a: The journeying of Pārtha. An eighteenth-century Balinese kakawin. Leiden: KITLV Press. 1999

‘The Balinese kakawin tradition: A preliminary description and inventory’, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 155:45-96.

332

Review essays

Kern, J.H.C. 1919 Het oud-javaansche lofdicht Nāgarakrtāgama van Prapañca (1365 A.D.): Tekst, vertaling en bespreking, overgedrukt uit de Verspreide Geschriften, Dl. VII-VIII van Prof. Dr. H. Kern; Met aanteekeningen van Dr. N.J. Krom. ’s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff. [KITLV] 1922 Het oud-Javaansche lofdicht Nagarakertagama van Prapantja (1365 A.D.); De vertaling en bespreking van Prof. Dr. H. Kern met aanteekeekeningen van Dr. N.J. Krom, populair bewerkt ten behoeve van de Commissie voor de Volkslectuur. Weltevreden: Commissie voor de Volkslectuur. Meij, Dick van der 2006 ‘Review essay, “Latest editions of Indonesian classical texts”’, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 162:397-405. 2009 ‘Review of Stuart Robson, Arjuna Wiwāha: The marriage of Arjuna of Mpu Kan�wa’, Wacana, Jurnal Ilmu Pengetahuan Budaya 11-1:187-90. Pigeaud, Th.G.Th. 1960-63 Java in the 14th century: A study in cultural history: The Nāgara-Kěrtāgama by Rakawi, prapañca of Majapahit, 1365 A.D. The Hague: Nijhoff. Five vols. [KITLV, Translation Series 4.] Robson, Stuart 1995 Deśawarnana (Nāgarakrtāgama) by Mpu Prapañca. Leiden: KITLV Press. [Verhandelingen 169.] 2001 ‘On translating the Arjunawiwāha’, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 157:35-50. 2008 Arjunawiwāha: The marriage of Arjuna of Mpu Kan�wa. Leiden: KITLV Press. [Bibliotheca Indonesica 34.] Santoso, Soewito 1975 Sutasoma: A study in Javanese Wajrayana. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture. [Śata-pit�aka, Indo-Asian Literatures 213.] Săub, Aleksandr Kirillovič 1992 Nagarakertagama kak istocnik po istorii rannego Madžapachita (1293-1365). Moskva: Nauka. Slamet Muljana 1953 Nagarakretagama/Prapantja: diperbaharui kedalam bahasa Indonesia oleh Slametmuljana. Djakarta: Siliwangi. 1979 Nagarakretagama dan tafsir sejarahnya. Jakarta: Bhratara Karya Aksara. 2006 Tafsir sejarah Nagara Kretagama. Yogyakarta: LKiS. Soekatno, Revo Arka Giri 2009 Kidung Tantri Kediri: Kajian filologis sebuah naskah Jawa Pertengahan. PhD thesis, Leiden University. Supomo, S. 1972 ‘“Lord of the mountains” in the fourteenth century kakawin’, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 128:281-97. Teeuw, A. and S.O. Robson (eds) 2005 Bhomāntaka: The death of Bhoma. Leiden: KITLV Press. [Bibliotheca Indonesica 32.]

View more...

Comments

Copyright © 2017 DATENPDF Inc.