An early figural hilt

[A. G. Maisey]

I'm very sorry that you feel like this Gustav, but I do understand your frustration, it is a frustration that can arise when a foreign word is used mixed in with a different language. This is certainly a difficulty, and I'll try to clarify that, but I would most respectfully ask you to read my explanation of the word "wayang" and consider if what I have written is at variance with what you have written.

In fact, my understanding of the meaning of the word "wayang" is not at all as you have summarised it in your post #15.

I feel, that a large part of your frustration could be caused by a simple misunderstanding of the actual meaning of the word "wayang", and the way in which it can be used. I did try to clear this up in my previous post #14, but my explanation is buried in text, and it might easily have been missed, here it is again:-

However there are many other different ways of presenting those stories, some use the painted puppet in front of the screen, some use other puppets of various forms, sometimes a scroll with illustrations can be used, sometimes the story is told by human players, and this last is "Wayang Wong".

Wayang is story telling with illustrative assistance.

In essence, "wayang" is theatre, and just as with the English word "theatre", it can be used with an adjective to indicate the type of wayang that is being referred to. The word "wayang" is Javanese and it existed in Old Javanese, where the primary meaning is "pertunjukan", that is to say "a performance" but Zoetmulder qualifies this and specifies:-

"pertunjukan ( dramatik) yang didalamnya disajikan cerita (dengan boneka-boneka, oleh penari)

in English this means:-

"a dramatic performance that contains a presentation of a story, using dolls or puppets, or by a dancer" (the word "boneka can be understood as either "doll" or "puppet").

This is the meaning of the word "wayang", as it was understood in Old Javanese.

Modern Javanese seemed to develop from around the end of the 16th century, and it is common practice to regard Javanese used prior to this as Old Javanese, but in technical terms, Old Javanese was already adopting a new form during the Majapahit era, so purist linguists hold that the period between Majapahit and Mataram was the period in which Middle Javanese was used. Middle Javanese is the transitional phase between Old Javanese and Modern Javanese.

In Modern Javanese the word "wayang" is ngoko, the krama word is "ringgit". When used in the absence of an adjective, both these words can be understood to mean either the puppet used in a shadow-play, or the shadow-play itself. In Modern Javanese there are at least 17 commonly used adjectives that when combined with the word "wayang" will convey a specific meaning of the word wayang.

The word "wayang" has come into Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia), and in this language, when used alone, it can mean either a shadow play, a leather puppet, or a traditional drama performance. As with Modern Javanese there is a plethora of adjectives that can be used with the word "wayang" to indicate the way in which the word is to be understood, of course, in normal colloquial usage the adjectives are not required if the meaning and/or intent is already clear from the context.

The most common usage of "wayang" when it is used to refer to puppet is in reference to a leather puppet, strictly, the leather puppet should be referred to as "wayang kulit", but because in Indonesian a leather puppet will be intended to be understood 99.9% of the time, it is common practice to drop the adjective "kulit" when referring to a puppet.

If we go to the glossary of Kinney's "Worshipping Siva & Buddha", which you appear to be drawing upon quite heavily, we find that the meaning of the word "wayang" is given as:-

"wayang (kulit) Javanese shadow play with leather puppets (kulit means "leather" in Javanese) "

So even here we see the meaning of "wayang" given as "shadow play", and when the adjective "kulit" is added, we have "shadow play with leather puppets".

Perhaps Gustav, you can now understand that that your characterisation of my understanding is in fact quite erroneous.

The Common Man

I wrote the above earlier this morning, over coffee, whilst I was having breakfast. Later in the morning I had two visitors, both native speakers of Javanese, now living in Australia, one is a retired accountant, the other is a retired public servant, neither of these people is an artistic nor culturally aligned person, both just ordinary people getting on with their lives and more interested in soap operas and yesterday's game of golf, than in shadow plays than the traditional culture of Jawa.

Because I'd just finished writing the above, wayang & etc was at the front of my mind, so I ran a question past them:-

"Tell me, if I say the word "wayang" to you, what is the thought that comes into your mind?"

Both gave answers in the same vein, one said, more or less:-

"Wayang? Just by itself? Impossible, what is the rest of the sentence? My first thought is just who is the wayang? Who is being manipulated?"

The other person said:- "That's just somebody standing there, doing nothing, waiting to be told what to do"

This was the way these two people thought of the word "wayang", a puppet, somebody who is manipulated and ordered around by somebody else. I should have remembered this when I was writing the above. To many people in the higher classes, and many people who are grass roots Javanese, the wayang is an integral part of their lives, but to ordinary middle class people who one might say are culturally unconscious, the wayang is part of another world, these people think of the word "wayang" as a derogatory description of somebody who is manipulated. For example, many politicians are referred to as "wayang".

There is perhaps a very timely message in this.

[Gustav]

Alan, thank you once more - actually I understand quite well all you have written in your last posts - I would say, it's the basic knowledge for somebody, who is really interested in Wayang.

Once more - the reason why all this started is my fundamental problem to understand just your sentence:

"This is where the problem arises, because it seems probable that the comic nature of the wayang panakawans did not arise until wayang golek was replaced by wayang purwa in the 15th century in Demak, the replacement occurred because of Raden Patah's prohibition that applied to the wayang golek puppets."

Please correct me if I am wrong -

Wayang Golek in context of Wayang is a PUPPET constructed in a specific style from specific materials.

Wayang Purwa IS NOT A PUPPET, in context of Wayang it is a certain repertoire, a compendium of stories (presented using puppets or dancers, as per Zoetmulder, who forgets Wayang Beber). How can a puppet be replaced by a repertoire? This is my first problem with your sentence.

My second problem - the Wayang Purwa repertoire is the main repertoire of Wayang. It absolutely surely existed in Majapahit and before Majapahit. Why should Raden Patah replace something (you write Wayang Golek, a puppet style) with a repertoire (Wayang Purwa), which was ancient already in Raden Patah's time, was anyway the main repertoire and moreover deals with non-Islamic themes?

My third problem: I have not seen any academic publication, in fact no publication, which would mention Wayang Golek puppet style before Raden Patah's time, in Raden Patah's time, and at about a century after Raden Patah's time. Nothing similar to Wayang Golek is known on Bali (except for 4 modern performances between 1995 and 1998), which most probably would be the case if Wayang Golek or some kind of "puppets in the round", as you write, would have existed in Majapahit. There seems to be an general agreement that Wayang Golek with a quite big certainty originated in West Java and specifically in Cirebon, the puppet construction style is close to Chinese puppet construction style and the big part of repertoire played with these puppets is Islamic/deals with Islamisation of Java.

I hope I explained my thoughts clearly this time.

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, I must admit I do have more than a little bit of difficulty in understanding your motives in pursuing this matter. I will try to satisfy you once more, but in reality, I believe I have already answered your questions in this most recent post of yours in my own previous posts. But I'll try again, hopefully with a little more success this time.

Wayang golek can mean "golek puppet", and it can also mean "golek puppet performance"; "wayang" can be used in many ways, in the context of a wayang performance it must be understood as "performance".

The same is true of "wayang purwa":- "wayang purwa" can be understood as "the puppet theatre repertoire that includes stories from the very beginning", or it can be understood as:- "a puppet theatre performance that draws upon the repertoire of stories from the very beginning".

In the passage that you quote, I was writing about performances, which I believe is obvious.

The Javanese language is like unto English in that a word can be understood in a number of ways, depending upon context.

Your second problem.
There are a number of beliefs that surround the Raden Patah prohibition, and it is not likely that we will ever know the complete accurate details of the prohibition and its eventual lifting. Some things that should be considered are that Raden Patah (AKA Jin Bun, AKA Cek Ko Po) had Chinese blood lines, and that the Muslim population on North Coast Jawa in the 15th century was made up principally of Chinese traders.

Another thing that we need to consider is that the early leather puppets were believed to be heavily ornamented with paint and possibly with moveable parts. Men watched the puppets from the dalang side of the screen, women from the shadow side of the screen.

Raden Patah was not born Muslim, he converted to Islam, and as with many new converts to a religion he became a little extreme in his views. So although some people say it was the Muslim clerics who wanted the bans, others say that Raden Patah himself wanted the bans and the clerics found a way around these bans, principally because they wanted to use the wayang (theatre) for religious propaganda.

So what is believed to have happened is that new puppets were devised that were painted black, and were without moving parts, it then took another couple of hundred years for the style of the puppets, and for the manner in which they were watched, to come back to what had been usual prior to Raden Patah.

Now Gustav, you must understand, what I am relating here is based upon conversations with people whom I believe know more than I do about the wayang. As I have repeatedly said, any slight knowledge I may have of the wayang has not been acquired through books or study, I have very little interest in the wayang, and no interest at all in adding to the slight knowledge I already have. A somewhat similar situation to my knowledge of the ballet of the Western World:- I am completely uninterested in ballet, it bores me, I do have a little bit of knowledge of ballet, but that is due to the fact that I have a couple of relatives who are ballet teachers and ex-performers. Ballet, wayang, for me both these performing arts do not register on my list of things to spend time on.

Now, your second problem seems to need an explanation of the actions taken by Raden Patah in respect of wayang performances. I cannot give you a verifiable explanation, and frankly I seriously doubt that anybody alive today can. You have the interest in this, you obviously enjoy what you have read, so go the texts and form your own opinion. It is likely to be just as valid as any opinion I that may have.

Your third problem.
Gustav, just one more time:- I am coming at this entire wayang matter from a different direction to your own. Anything I have written is based on popular belief and the belief of working dalangs. That belief may be more or less accurate, or it might not be so. I don't care either way. I'm not interested.

What I do know is this:- it is not my part in any interaction with Javanese people to try to teach them that their cultural beliefs are incorrect, thus, what they may care to tell me, I accept, if I disagree I keep it to myself. If you want people to open up and talk to you, you do not set yourself up as an authority and try to teach them things that you, yourself only half understand.

In effect, your "Third Problem" is no problem at all:- you have your own sources of information, and you can form your own opinions. There is no problem. I am absolutely uninterested in trying to get you to accept my opinions, my opinions are for use in speaking with and interacting with a lot of people with whom I have social and family intercourse with every day. My opinions are of no use to you.

Gustav, I do appreciate that you have a deep knowledge of and interest in the Javanese puppet theatre, I most gently suggest that if you wish to continue conversation that involves this form of the performing arts, that you would be well advised to seek out somebody who has a similar deep interest in this subject, because I have very little interest. I am aware that there are some discussion groups centered around the puppet theatre in general, perhaps one of these groups might be a better place for you to continue discussion of the wayang?

[Gustav]

Alan, the reason why I was enquiring about this excerpt:

when you write about things concerning Majapahit, you usually choose an academic approach, quoting academic writers, dictionaries etc. That gives an academic "weight" to your thought and it's impressive in a non-academical forum like ours.

The excerpt about which I was enquiring is written in the same academical modus, but the information given in it is a complete nonsense from academical viewpoint.

So it draws from the "knowledge of community".

About the distinction between "puppet", "repertoire" and "performance":

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

In the passage that you quote, I was writing about performances, which I believe is obvious.

It isn't obvious at all, because Wayang Golek as performance is never mentioned there, but the last part of your sentence explicitly mentions "prohibition that applied to the wayang golek puppets."

Even if we see Wayang Golek and Wayang Purwa as performance - the statement nevertheless stays a nonsense, even from non-academical viewpoint. If this certain kind of puppet was the nightmare of Raden Patah, it makes no sense to replace the performance using a certain kind of puppets with a performance of a certain repertoire.
It's desirable and possible to replace it with a performance using another certain kind of puppets, or dancers, etc.

Now I have got my answers and won't bother anybody with my enquiries about Wayang for some time.

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, I do deeply regret that my writing is so difficult for you to understand, please accept my most sincere apologies for this inadequacy, most especially so, as I have said nothing different in my last post than I have said in various ways in my preceding posts.

In my own defence, I did try very hard to explain the ways in which the word "wayang" can be understood, so I suspect that this entire rather ridiculous series of exchanges between us actually comes down to a simple matter of confusion in respect of language.

You have made me very disappointed in my own attempts to convey information. In this Forum I strive to write in what I consider to be a "conversational" style, a style of writing that tries to convey in text the way in which I would speak if we were all sitting in a big circle, face to face. I do try to the best of my ability to avoid the use of any faux academic approach, and in fact, I doubt that any objective assessment of my writing style could ever legitimately place it into the "academic" box. In fact, we are all just hobbyists putting forward our own experiences and opinions with, I assume, the objective of sharing those opinions & experiences with others of a similar mind.

In respect of the content of my posts to this present thread, and that you seem to consider have been written in an "academic" style, but that contain comments that you categorise as "a complete nonsense", well, I can only agree with you, if in fact you mistook my casual, relaxed, conversational approach as an "academic" style of writing, which it very clearly is not. I do admit, under pressure, that I have done my share, and perhaps more than my share of writing intended for academic use, and I assure you, the standards that must be met for this style of writing are much more stringent than the putting into text of a relaxed after dinner chat.

In any case, it appears that at last you are satisfied with the result of this rather amusing discussion, and I do hope that you can benefit from all that you have gained.

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

In my own defence, I did try very hard to explain the ways in which the word "wayang" can be understood, so I suspect that this entire rather ridiculous series of exchanges between us actually comes down to a simple matter of confusion in respect of language.

It is not a confusion in respect of language, as this odd sentence stays without sense no matter how you turn it. I have done my utmost in explaining why it has no sense and I obviously have failed.

[A. G. Maisey]

As you wish Gustav.