Classical Malay literature

For all the critiques levied against them, it is without a doubt that the Orientalist knowledge regimes of colonial Malaysia and the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), produced some of the most impressive scholarly collections and studies of Malay history, literature, religion and culture. Slowly, these pieces would emerge into English language scholarship through rigorous analyses and translations such as Winstedt’s works[1] and the works of such individuals as CC Brown (Sejarah Melayu or Malay Annals – 1970), Virginia Matheson (on the Tuhfat al-Nafis – 1975; and a full translation with Barbara Andaya of Tuhfat Al Nafis by Raja Ali Haji Ibn Ahmad – 1982), Barbara Andaya (on Perak – 1979; To Live as Brothers – 1993; and with Leonard Andaya – A History of Malaysia – 1982[2001]) and Leonard Andaya (particularly on Johor – twice in 1975). If these studies are to be taken as trends of the day, it is fair to say that the field of Southeast Asian studies was concerned quite centrally with concepts of state power from the middle of the century through the 1970s, particularly focused on the potential for localized power structures and of detailed notions of difference in between the individual Malay sultanates, although the rich Malay literary tradition made an excellent basis for source material. Nevertheless, this line of inquiry seems to have led to an explosion of knowledge about Malay literature that has been produced in English more recently, although if Amirul Hadi’s (2011) study of the Hikayat Prang Sabi is indicative of a wider trend, then the focus upon manuscript study in relation to Malay culture was still being completed with contemporary political relevance in mind. This is not to say that contemporary political relevance is not in the minds of translators Raxif Bahari and Harry Aveling who have chosen to undertake the momentous task of translating Liaw Yock Fang’s A History of Malay Classical Literature, rather the relevance is quite striking. Literature brings people together, and, by making Liaw Yock Fang’s historicization of the vast tradition of Malay literature available to the English reading world, the translators have done a great service, providing us with a precious gift that can be enjoyed by the young and the old alike, by laypeople as well as scholars.

 

Influences to the North and West

Of the early influences on Malay culture was, not surprisingly, the Austronesian culture of the Cham polities (collectively known as ‘Champa’) as we learn that the famous ‘Mousedeer’ stories are supposed to have spread from the Chams to the Malays, before, they would then differentiate into Cambodian (Khmer), Malay and Javanese variations (p. 11). After the early influence of the Chams, however, Liaw Yock Fang’s study suggests that Brahmanist influence was of paramount importance. Here, although Liaw Yock Fang’s rejects the claim that it was the ksatriya class that was responsible for spreading Indic cultural influence to Southeast Asia, the author still seems to take a rather traditional scholarly approach (more than 60 years old) and suggest that the Brahmin caste was singularly responsible (p. 50). This approach to the study of ‘Indianization’ does not take into account the substantial self-Indianization and re-Indianization of Southeast Asia that would occur during later periods of history.

With further attention to the question of adaptations of Indian epics, either through the translation or the work of the original author, there appear to be some points in this text where the reader is left to make the connections between discourse. For example, the author presents an argument of DC Sen that Vilmiki’s classic Ramayana was supposed to originate from three sources: 1) the Dasarata Jataka 2) southern Indian myths about Ravana and 3) monkey worship. However, later on the same page, it appears (as would be a more logical claim), that the Dasarata Jataka is derivative of Vilmiki’s Ramayana (p. 51). Readers could see the Dasarata Jataka as perhaps one of the first of a long chain of Ramayana derivations that include, in the Mahabarata: the Yoga-Vasistha-Ramayana, the Adhiyat-Ramayana and the Adbhuta-Ramayana (p. 51), as well as Malay derivative narratives that continued to be produced in relatively new interpretations through the begining of the twentieth century, such as the Serat Kanda Ning Ringgit Purwa (Juynboll 1911); which even includes a portion about Adam and Eve in the story as the origins of human-kind. Here, although the translators have chosen to stick with the Christian names of these figures, one assumes that the original text, given the Malay cultural context named these figures: ‘Adam and Hawwa (p. 57).

Speaking of origins, Liaw Yock Fang presents an oft forgotten, or little discussed detail in the study of the Malay hikayat (Ar: hikayat – stories). He argues that the hikayat genre likely held its origins in the Javanese panji genre, although the author is careful to note that the regional popularity of panji is likely in part “due to the propaganda purveyed by the Javanese themselves” (p. 113) as an ever present reminder of the important link between forms of ‘high’ literature and political power. Nevertheless, there are certain panji where the oldes version of the story appears to have been derived from hikayat form – such as the Hikayat Galuh Digantung. Yet, the text notes the dated appearance of the Hikayat Galuh Digantung as either 1882 CE or 1886 CE – 1330 AH or 1283 AH. Here it appears that either through translation or the work of the original author there has been a misdating of the text as the year 1300 AH corresponds to 1882 and 1304 corresponds to 1886 CE. This lack of clarity or errata regarding the history of this text is indicative of the exceedingly difficult task that both the authors and the translators have taken on (p. 116).[2]

Beyond the occasional misdating of a text in correspondence with the “Common Era” and Al-Hiraj, the authors discussion of panji stories is simply fascinating. Of particular interest is the assertion of panji influenced narratives in Cambodia and Thailand. In Cambodia the panji heroe is referred to as ‘Eynao’ like ‘Ino’ in Jawi (p. 138) (and “Inâ” in Cham). Even in Thailand there are two panji with clearly Javanese influences, appearing in Thai literature, known under the titles Dalang and Ari Negara. In both of these stories the main character follows a plot arc that is similar to the Javanese panji stories. Panji has three main lovers, amongst many others and then is tricked into losing them or leaving them all, although he does eventually become a famous dalang – a figure from Javanese literature (p. 138). A dalang, in explanation, is a comedic figure who takes down their own character, shedding their ego, in hopes that their audience gains some simple pleasures of their performance.

That the dalang eventually would become popular in parts of Southeast Asia outside Java is not particularly surprising. Stories frequently crossed the eastern waters of the Gulf of Thailand. For example, while the mousedeer stories travelled from the civilization and culture of Champa to Java, the Hikayat Indra Putra travelled from Malay to many other language spheres, including Makassarese, Buginese, Achenese and Cham. This hikayat was first mentioned in Nurruddin ar-Raniri in his 1634 work Sirat al-Mustakim as not having Allah’s name and by Bustanus Salatin (1637) as a work that ‘contains only lies.’ Subsequently it was then mentioned in the works of Valentijn (1726) and Werndly (1736). However, almost al contemporary versions of the text contain Islamic influence (p. 158). Thus, the question of the Cham version of this text is frequently raised: is it possible that somehow the Cham version represents the way that the Malay text may have been pre-Islamic influence? While this question has been answered – along with many other questions about the text in an excellent Malay-French and Cham tri-lingual publication by the Ecole Francaise D’extreme Orient-Kuala Lumpur (EFEO-KL) there is still no English language study of the Cham version that has been completed. Nevertheless, the nature of this exploration beckons the question of Ta’rikh – or ‘history’ – and in particular ‘Islamic history.’

 

Ta’rikh: History of Islam and Literature

The framing of the authors introduction of Islam ‘into the archipelago’ reveals a somewhat inherent Javanese bias. Indeed, if one asks for one of the earliest evidences of the arrival of Islam ‘in the archipelago’ they have to consider the gravestone of Fatimah binti Maimu ibn Hibatullah at Gesrik/Leran in eastern Java (1082 CE) is one of the earliest of the region (p. 182). However, the framing of the question of ‘into the archipelago’ forces one to ignore evidence of the earlier arrival of Islam in peninsular Malaysia – being two gravestone markers: one dated between 826 and 829 CE and the other of Syaikh Abdul Kadhi ibn Syaikh Husain Syah Alam (903/904 CE) (Falarti 2013: 3, 28). Additional evidence for the earlier arrival of Islam presented by the Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa which purportedly reveals the twelfth century conversion of Pra Ong Mahawangsa in 1136 CE. This may reflect what Falarti (2013) has highlighted as a trait of ‘ignoring’ and ‘denigrating’ the Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa “by both colonial and more recent Malay scholars” (Falarti 2013: xvi).[3] However, it also reveals the biases of working with within an ‘archipelagic’ mindset that overwrites the evidence of peninsular Malaysia, allowing the author of this text to, understandably, but erroneously, claim that the Terengganu inscription (1303 CE) is the oldest evidence of the arrival of Islam in Malaysia (p. 182), when in reality this is simply not the case.

Despite the minor errors in dating, attention to certain details, or perhaps ‘Javanese biases’ that make themselves apparent in this most recent attempt at A Classical History of Malay Literature, there is no doubt that the combined efforts of the translators and of Liaw Yock Fang can not be considered anything but a resounding success. The translators themselves have worked hard to produce a phenomenally fluid, readable, accessible text. Meanwhile, as one of the leading scholars of Malay literature Liaw Yock Fang has produced a text that gives phenomenal introductions into the classical high Malay genre of the hikayat, the Javanese panji stories, good introductions to Islamic literature on theology, as well as translations of Qu’ranic concepts. There are also clear explanations of the local practices (adat) and adaptations of Qu’ranic law (sharia), as well as a great, introductory, discussion to the Malay pantun and syair.

The Malay pantun are verses that were originally meant to be sung in an ABAB form. The word pantun has been noted by some to have been related to the Malay word for ‘proverb’ perhibahasa. However, as the author points out, the root of pantun is more likely from the stem tun – part of the words for “well organized,” “skilful arrangement” ,“a threat”, “to lead”, and “polite, worthy of respect” in Pampanga, Tagalog, Old Javanese and batak Toba (p. 442). Here, however, the author has curiously not removed Tagalog from Winsdet’s list of ‘Indonesian’ languages, suggesting that the understanding of linguistics in reference to Malay literature may have been in need of some refreshment, as Tagalog should have been noted as an ‘Austronesian’ and not ‘Indonesian’ language. Nevertheless, there are interesting points made about the pantun and the syair, in particular an assertion that is drawn from a 1989 dissertation by Harun Mat Piah that suggests that over 70% of all syair are romantic with pleasant endings (p. 454), while many, such as the Syair Tajul Muluk also have clear Persian influences (p. 454). Furthermore the syair demonstrated the flexibility of genres as the Syair Anggun Cik and the Syair Indra Putra were both adapted from earlier hikayat (p. 465). The flexibility of genre may be important to remember, however, there is something indicative about the conclusion to this study that seems to set it apart from many other studies of literature. The closing lines are taken from Syair Raksi (Omens) by Haji Muhaamad Amin that was drawn from a six chapter work presented by Ovenbeck (1923). Thus the last page reads:

 

Jika hendak bertemu orang

Bangsa yang baik atau kurang

Dipikirkan kelpangan orang

Jangan pergi waktu sebarang

If you want to meet someone

Whether they be noble or not

Think of when they might be free

Don’t just go any old time (p. 485)

 

Having no other explanation we are left to conclude that while the narrative of A History of Classical Malay Literature may have been articulated in a frame of complex Ta’rikh based explorations of folk genres and texts, establishing sections and studies that would be appropriate for all ages and all levels of scholarly achievement, in the end Lia Yock Fang has presented readers with a complex, nuanced collection of adat literature.

 

William B. Noseworthy, Center for Khmer Studies, Council of American Overseas Research Centers - University of Wisconsin-Madison

 

 

[1] Winstedt, R.O. “Malay Chronicles from Sumatra and Malay” in Ed. Hall, D.G.E. 1961. Historians of South East Asia. London: Oxford University Press. pp 24-29 for a short sample of Winstedt’s work.

[2] It is possible that this error was simply recopied from the source material of Ovenbeck (1932)

[3] These references are to: Falarti, Maziar Mozaffari. 2013. Malay Kingship in Kedah: Religion, Trade, and Society. New York: Lexington Books