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 Bali which. nowadays a limited choice is made between them and the other manuscripts are ignored. Mastutu/ Bramantyo used the transliteration made by Soewito Santoso. O’Brien has not used any manuscripts. including Indonesian. The books under discussion use almost no philology at all. and collections on Bali have also been ignored completely. 2009). where small numbers of manuscripts were used and the choice of which was moreover insufficiently explained (Van der Meij 2006. x. That manuscripts are also kept in private collections. which has 148 cantos. scholarship much more frequently. and Kakawin Arjuna Wiwāha (Robson 2008). and no information is provided on which original manuscript was consulted (p. have entered the world of international. This is especially so for Balinese geguritan. as does the Balinese version published by the Dinas Pendidikan Dasar. Neither O’Brien nor Mastuti/Bramantyo mention the existence of the Balinese Dinas version. Library of the University of Indonesia) and international manuscript collections (especially that of Leiden University Library) that contain manuscripts of the Sutasoma. characteristically. and they pay precious little attention to manuscripts to begin with. This means that despite the availability of many catalogues of manuscripts. whereas kakawin. Kakawin Bhomāntaka (Teeuw and Robson 2004). O’Brien provides the translation of the extra canto at cantos 124a and 124b. as can easily be seen from the . O’Brien mentions this in note 18 to the introduction. Rather than painstakingly comparing all the available manuscripts of a text. Both editions of the Sutasoma are based on already existing transliterations. but it remains unclear what has happened. They gloss over national (Indonesian National Library. 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. 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. this has not led to greater use of manuscripts! In the kakawin world. Interestingly. There are two versions of the Sutasoma. 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 trend was already in evidence in the text editions of the Kakawin Bhomāntaka (2004) and the Kakawin Arjuna Wiwāha. Another trend worth noting is that the philological tradition seems to be changing.Review essays 323 three being the Kakawin Pārthāyan�a (Creese 1990). 4). Propinsi Daerah Tingkat Satu. one consisting of 147 and the other 148 cantos. but relied on an anonymous transliteration made for and probably under the critical eyes of Prof. and the Nāgara Kr�tāgama edition has not been made on the basis of manuscript comparisons. 7). Piet (not Peter) Zoetmulder. does not mention its manuscript source. probably because they are considered beautiful and difficult. Van der Meij 2006. This is. Kakawin meters are usually not indicated in the manuscripts and to decipher the meters used is not easy. Gat�otkacāśraya. and the present books do not tell differently. if any at all. rather than considered part of past and present elements of Balinese culture (see especially Creese 1999. the role of the Balinese is usually not given the importance it deserves. neither O’Brien nor Mastuti/Bramantyo show what these manuscripts look like. 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. 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. Notwithstanding the fact that kakawin have come down to us thanks to the many activities of the Balinese. Acri 2010). O’Brien and Mastuti/Bramantyo pay virtually no attention to this aspect. the modern computer-produced bilingual Old-Javanese – Balinese editions are also worth studying in this context. Photographs of the entire manuscript Riana used are added at the end of his book. Bharatayuddha. 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. O’Brien indicates the meters in the samples of the Old Javanese text she presents in . before we turn to matters of translation and presentation. where manuscripts contain both the Old Javanese texts and surrounding Balinese glosses. Incidentally. only true for kakawin that stem from ancient Java. We should bear in mind that in the past many kakawin have been composed on Bali (see Creese 1999). Smaradahana. Famous kakawin of this category include the Kakawin Rāmāyan�a. most of which have been preserved in Bali. Arjuna Wiwāha. Bhomāntaka. Kakawin and kakawin meters Kakawin are Old Javanese poems in Indian or Indian derived meters. and the Sutasoma and Nāgarakr�tāgama kakawin discussed here. Sumanasāntaka. but one would need a magnifying glass to consult them because of the size of the illustrated lontar leaves. their understanding of the contents of kakawin and their practices of the use of these texts have still been insufficiently studied. no study has yet been conducted about the kakawin maarti texts from Bali. 2009.324 Review essays ‘Proyek Tik’. Incidentally. has also escaped attention. or about their relations to Indian ‘originals’. and the last couple of years have seen a proliferation of new kakawin production (Van der Meij 2006). however. Let us start with some general remarks on the books first. and do not present the meters of the individual cantos. Despite Bali’s crucial role in the preservation of old kakawin and in the production of new ones. Many are considered adaptations of Indian sources. Śiwarātrikalpa. as this project has again been completely ignored. For instance. and their work can thus be checked against the original. The bilingual. Now. twovolume Old-Javanese-Balinese edition of the Sutasoma in Balinese script mentioned above provides a neat list of the meters used. and that it is unnecessary to add an almost inaccessible text in an almost unknown language. Part of the translation can be ‘checked’ because 354 stanzas of the Old Javanese text have been included in the book as appendix 1. It would have helped the readers’ appreciation of the literary value of the Sutasoma if more information about kakawin had been added. and I dearly missed the Old Javanese. 7. a kakawin must be translated elegantly and poetically and the story has to be understandable. 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. there are still plenty of question marks in the dictionary. 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. or words glossed too broadly to help in particular contexts. How can one hope to translate an Old Javanese text. The atmosphere . She decided to omit the Old Javanese because her book is not concerned with the philological aspects of the original text.) Translating a kakawin is not easy. 1974. As this is almost 30 percent of the text. (Robson 2001:42-3. Translation After all. I also used to think that a translation should be enough. O’Brien calls the Old Javanese passages she added ‘significant’ but fails to explain what is so significant about them (p. The meters used in the Sutasoma are not difficult to find. Zoetmulder has also provided the meters in his Kalangwan (English edition. Nevertheless.). I find that my ideas on this have changed over time. Indonesian edition 1983). and if this edition were unavailable. This remark gives rise to various questions.Review essays 325 Appendix 1.en Volkenkunde. Mastuti/Bramantyo present the Old Javanese text flanked by their Indonesian translation. 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. perhaps the rest might have been included as well. based on one transcript. Riana also gives the Old Javanese text next to his translation. Land. Stuart Robson has elaborated on the ways and possibilities of translating kakawin in his article of 2001 in the Bijdragen tot de Taal-. 8). 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. she states that ‘Under these circumstances translation treads a tenuous path indeed. and so to please her. O’Brien’s translation (p. especially not when it is probably not supported by the original Old Javanese. I must confess that I am not particularly happy with O’Brien’s translation because it is unpoetic. The incarnation of Jina (prince) was delighted and full of praise for her as a poet. Śrī Jinatanu sira hārs�ajāmuji tĕkap nira kawi dahatĕn. but she probably means that since Zoetmulder’s Old-Javanese – English Dictionary appeared in 1982. scholarship (or what is understood as scholarship) takes precedence over aesthetically pleasing translations. paying no heed to her angry look [which to him] was like honey. Cumbu sumarasah asung sĕpah ri waja pangrĕn�a nira wĕkasan. 98) reads Thus is was sweetness on sweetness as she read her poem. Soewito Santoso’s version (1975:392) is equally mawkish: Thus the loveliness of her recitation of the poem deepened his feelings of love. . Sambyangarĕki pipi tan bĕsur tinikĕlan halis asĕmu madhu. any translation is subjective and the exercise is indeed tenuous. Canto 89-3 Mangkana manis i manis nirāmaca palambang amuwuhi langö. Let us take a look at a few instances of the various translations of the Sutasoma and see where they differ. dull and does in no way reflect the beauty of the original.326 Review essays in the story should also not jump too much. Of course. The incarnation of Jina gladly praised her great skill in composing poems. mindful of being frowned at-which seemed like honey. At the same time kissing her cheek. there was need to review Soewito Santoso’s translation. for incomprehensible reasons. 4). Humbly. increasing its beauty. quite often little more than an exercise in subjective interpretation’ (p. As happens so often in kakawin translations. 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. as he kissed her cheeks. he embraced her tightly and passed her chewed betel from mouth to mouth. 5). I do not know what up-to-date means in this context. Love spread about them and finally he passed betel quid to her to show his pleasure with her. with thousands of eyes. and this is called their Triwikrama form. Or even more likely. I wonder if we should consider this differently. scowl at. Soewito Santoso (1975:220) seems to capture it better: Is it your Triwikrama form you rely upon. of the line of the brows (when cross or angry)’. and by visualizing the prince kissing the princess. Seven rows of heads. śirah susun sapta matumpa-tumpa. I thus . Four-armed with thousands and thousands of terrible weapons with seven heads heaped one upon the other. 42) renders this: Or is it Triwikrama who serves as your support: Thousands of terrible four-arms. The scene is one of lovemaking and joy after Sutasoma and Candrawati have been married. but I would feel that we should perhaps also experience what is actually going on in the text. one on top of the other. 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). In Old Javanese texts – and also in wayang – fragile heroes can transform themselves into frightening giants.Review essays 327 I am puzzled here with both translations. A thousand of them. note that this extreme close-up perspective would make her eyebrows seem to blur together and that that might please him. esp.]’. I would suspect her to be just as jubilant as Semele in Händels opera of the same name.. Now I fail to see why Gajawaktra would be afraid of a dwarf. I agree that we might not only want that ‘the translator’s work must be heard as poetry’ (Robson 2001:43). Another instance of this is canto 30-8 which reads: Triwikrâmanung makapanghad�anta. to frown at. each differing from the other. haneka sewu lwir ikang matâkweh. that the princess’s sweetness refers not to her eyebrows but to the kissing. 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 [. broken in two. when she sings Endless Pleasure Endless Love as she enjoys Jupiter’s heavenly bliss. with a sharp bend or break (in a straight line. each of them having many eyes. be cross with’ from the stem tikĕl ‘broken (of something straight). tangan catur meww-iwu sangkhya ghora. O’Brien (p.. The way O’Brien links the Sutasoma with the mandala as found in Tibet is interesting. 37. canto 25-1 lines 1 and 2: Ndan sira sang ks�inatriya tatan hana kahalĕp irān jugenaka. and that the way Buddhism and Sivaism merged was an important element in the religious make-up of the island. It shows perfectly how Sivaism and Buddhism blended in the Old Javanese world. italics mine). Mastuti/Bramantyo sometimes fail to keep the story in mind. Mastuti/Bramantyo translate it in a similar way. where the text was pre- . my prince. It is different for a king – he should be lord of the world. 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. there is no ideal “beauty” more preferable. reigning over the whole earth’ (p. Now. tidaklah berbeda dengan seorang raja yang memerintah dunia dan diabdi oleh para rakyatnya’. Now. This version is consistent with Soewito Santoso’s (1975:204. Some translations are also curious. translation and italics mine). It also shows that tantric Buddhism was a known current of Buddhism in ancient Java. bheda sakeng nr�patyahulunang bhuwana siwinĕn ing jagat kabeh. Since the king only had one child. Pangeran. She expertly shows that the Kakawin Sutasoma did not exist in Java in isolation from other texts. 25). In O’Brien’s translation the ksatriya and the king differ: ‘And for one born of warrior-lineage. comparing Sutasoma to his other offspring is quite a feat! I believe we still await the final translation of the Kakawin Sutasoma. and her efforts in intertextuality are laudable. 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. I can’t imagine that sacred literature is used merely to distract the king. O’Brien: ‘They were reciting together from sacred literature for the king to hear as a means of distraction’ (p. beauty or contentment for a ks�atriya is no different from that of a king ruling the world and served by all his people’. italics mine): ‘Now. again presumably because of insufficient understanding of what is going on. They translate canto 2-1. 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. The Sutasoma is a very interesting kakawin. my Prince. keelokan atau kepuasan seorang ksatria.328 Review essays think that this is what is referred to here. 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. Canto 8. and her detailed comparison of the Sutasoma with the Sang Hyang Kamahāyānan Mantranaya and Sang Hyang Kamahāyānikan is extremely important. the translations of Mastuti/Bramantyo and O’Brien do not agree. For instance. 9). 81. stanza 7 line 4 reads: sahojar ira wedaśāstra karĕngö pangimur-imur ire nareśwara. But in Mastuti/Bramantyo’s Indonesian translation they are the same: ‘Sekarang. At times. Sutasoma. and is now presented with a new Indonesian translation by I Ketut Riana. The book seems an attempt to redress this situation by the . This edition presents the text in Balinese/Old Javanese script with a transliteration. Supomo remarked: ‘Because of its importance for the study of Javanese history. Her elaborations of the Tibetan mandala are important to show that Old Javanese Buddhism does not exist in isolation of Buddhism in other places. mandala as such have not been preserved in Java. Also. Although apparently important. Cok Sawitri’s novel differs fundamentally from the Kakawin Sutasoma. Nāgara Kr�tāgama The Nāgara Kr�tāgama has been studied often. Robson 1995). which probably was not considered an important work in those days. The text is apparently popular and important so that the need is felt for updated editions and translations as time goes by. This is the more remarkable because Bali has a vibrant visual culture. 1979. the King of Ratnakanda. by Brandes (1902). Kern 1919). the Nagarakrtagama. which does not – it does not wholly manage to avoid presenting flat characters. Although the novel attempts to give more ordinary humanity to the characters – in contrast to the kakawin. but rather by compassion with his subjects. The interesting difference with the kakawin is that Jayantaka’s acts are not inspired by ill will. 2006). 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. Kern (1919) and Pigeaud (1960-1963) respectively’ (Supomo 1972:281). and mandala would have been no problem for the Balinese. It is an interesting novel in that it highlights the ways noble kings and princes should behave. 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. as it highlights the role of Sutasoma’s adversary Jayantaka.Review essays 329 served all this time. English (Pigeaud 1960-63. In 1972. but it is remarkable that no pictures of mandala exist in Bali. The Indonesian language used is sometimes unusual and her punctuation rather extraordinary. Translations have so far been made into Dutch (Brandes 1902. Russian (Săub 1992) and Indonesian (Slamet Muljana 1953. and can easily be read as directly criticizing present-day Indonesian realities. has been edited and published no less than three times so far. Cok Sawitri’s Sutasoma It may be useful to mention another publication about Sutasoma. as it provides the text in Balinese characters. 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. But since the text highlights the East Javanese Kingdom of Majapahit. The exemplary additional information on the Sutasoma O’Brien provides is a good example of how these kinds of books should be produced.330 Review essays way it presents the text in Balinese script. The fact that O’Brien (p. it is of great interest. Riana provides a neat list of all the thirteen manuscripts of the Nāgara Kr�tāgama known to him (p. 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. 1) ‘doubts that anything extraneous exists in this tale’ attests to the proper attitude she has towards the text. As usual. This is clearly a missed chance. or more expensive for that matter. and it may thus easily find its way to a general Balinese audience. 471). His list is curious. The translation they offer is readable and pleasant. I understand that the inclusion of the entire Old Javanese text would make a publication costly. and this is a pity. 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. but the inclusion of an accompanying CDrom with the text would not make the book much more difficult to produce. Kern 1919 and a transliteration (turunan?) of his work made in 1977. the fault lies not in the . The accuracy of translations cannot be checked. The introduction to the text that Mastuti/Bramantyo offer is shallow. but often lacks accuracy and often follows Soewito Santoso’s interpretation faithfully. His list is remarkable also because it is a mixture of a chronological presentation of editions (Brandes 1902. as it also contains edited versions and paper copies listed under the heading Naskah Lontar (Palm Leaf Manuscripts). The edition of the Nāgara Kr�tāgama is the most interesting for teaching purposes. and in translation. Conclusion If we compare O’Brien’s book with that of Mastuti/Brahmantyo the difference is enormous. transcription. full of mistakes and insufficient to herald an important text like the Kakawin Sutasoma. the many transcriptions of manuscripts in Bali made in the Hooykaas/Ketut Sangka ‘Proyek Tik’ programme are ignored. Latin transcription and Indonesian translation. as one would have expected the publication to be in Bali. A translation without accompanying Old Javanese text is a risk. That it was published in Jakarta by Kompas is strange. In contrast to O’Brien and Mastuti/Bramantyo. If we do not understand something. Batavia: Landsdrukkerij. Land. so that after having dealt with all temptations. The Rāmāyan�a does not have 26 cantos but 278 divided over 26 sargas (chapters). 3).A. thus the terms sarga and canto have been confused (O’Brien p. Land. [Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen 54-1. Bijdragen tot de Taal-. Brandes. Leiden: KITLV Press. References Acri. In the absence of other sources.en Volkenkunde 166:146-52. 11). And the real struggle in the text is not yet clear. she is absolutely right! Her criticism of Zoetmulder in this matter is therefore apt. time also has no further significance? Why are the gods in the text present both as gods and as incarnations at the same time. 7). J. and by so doing showed little respect for the kakawin.en Volkenkunde 155:45-96. I would venture to say that if anything still exists within the tale that seems without purpose. can be either an incarnation or reside in heaven. Bijdragen tot de Taal-. Is it that Buddha has to conquer Śiwa in his form of Kāla (basically the Lord of Time and thus our eternal mortal enemy). 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. . This sharply contrasts with Zoetmulder who dismissed much of the story. or. An eighteenth-century Balinese kakawin. For me she need not tentatively ‘venture to say’ this. Helen 1998 Pārthāyan�a: The journeying of Pārtha. van Madjapahit. in her words: ‘Therefore.L. Andrea 2010 ‘Review of Stuart Robson. Hajam Wuruk. Arjuna Wiwāha: The marriage of Arjuna of Mpu Kan�wa’. but Buddha not? Is it that Buddha. She also states that whatever clarity she can bring by way of explanation will only represent the ‘tip of the iceberg’. It continually surprises me when what should be a detail in scholarship turns into an insurmountable problem. That she calls the Nāgara Kr�tāgama ‘quasi-historical’ is also refreshing (p. but not both.] Creese. having been a human being. we are so much inclined to attribute the little we have with probably undeserved reliability. 1). ’s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff. 1902 Nâgarakrětâgama: Lofdicht van Prapanjtja op Koning Rasadjanagara. Her remark on consistency in the spelling of the Old Javanese and Sanskrit – ‘a logistic nightmare’ – is ever so true (p. Some curious mistakes I do not understand. 1999 ‘The Balinese kakawin tradition: A preliminary description and inventory’. it is because we do not yet understand what the poet intended by its inclusion’ (p.Review essays 331 text but in our lack of understanding. ] 2001 ‘On translating the Arjunawiwāha’. Jurnal Ilmu Pengetahuan Budaya 11-1:187-90. Supomo.D. Dr. 1979 Nagarakretagama dan tafsir sejarahnya. ’s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff. Aleksandr Kirillovič 1992 Nagarakertagama kak istocnik po istorii rannego Madžapachita (1293-1365). [Bibliotheca Indonesica 34. Five vols. prapañca of Majapahit. H. Krom. Th. Dl.C. Weltevreden: Commissie voor de Volkslectuur. 1972 ‘“Lord of the mountains” in the fourteenth century kakawin’.en Volkenkunde 162:397-405. Bijdragen tot de Taal-. Bijdragen tot de Taal-. Soekatno.O. overgedrukt uit de Verspreide Geschriften. Slamet Muljana 1953 Nagarakretagama/Prapantja: diperbaharui kedalam bahasa Indonesia oleh Slametmuljana. Dr. vertaling en bespreking. [Śata-pit�aka. Met aanteekeningen van Dr. A. Jakarta: Bhratara Karya Aksara.332 Review essays Kern. [Bibliotheca Indonesica 32. Land. Pigeaud. [KITLV. Djakarta: Siliwangi. 2008 Arjunawiwāha: The marriage of Arjuna of Mpu Kan�wa. Indo-Asian Literatures 213. [Verhandelingen 169.J. Yogyakarta: LKiS.] . 2009 ‘Review of Stuart Robson. The Hague: Nijhoff.J. Leiden: KITLV Press.): Tekst. Moskva: Nauka.H.D. Translation Series 4. Leiden: KITLV Press. S. Leiden: KITLV Press. N. “Latest editions of Indonesian classical texts”’.Th. Wacana. De vertaling en bespreking van Prof. Leiden University. Soewito 1975 Sutasoma: A study in Javanese Wajrayana. 1365 A. J.] Robson.).] Săub. 1919 Het oud-javaansche lofdicht Nāgarakrtāgama van Prapañca (1365 A. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture. PhD thesis. populair bewerkt ten behoeve van de Commissie voor de Volkslectuur. Meij. Teeuw. Stuart 1995 Deśawarnana (Nāgarakrtāgama) by Mpu Prapañca.D. Dick van der 2006 ‘Review essay. 1960-63 Java in the 14th century: A study in cultural history: The Nāgara-Kěrtāgama by Rakawi. Revo Arka Giri 2009 Kidung Tantri Kediri: Kajian filologis sebuah naskah Jawa Pertengahan. Land. Kern. Arjuna Wiwāha: The marriage of Arjuna of Mpu Kan�wa’. [KITLV] 1922 Het oud-Javaansche lofdicht Nagarakertagama van Prapantja (1365 A. and S. Kern met aanteekeekeningen van Dr. N. VII-VIII van Prof. Bijdragen tot de Taal-. H. 2006 Tafsir sejarah Nagara Kretagama. Krom.] Santoso.en Volkenkunde 157:35-50. Robson (eds) 2005 Bhomāntaka: The death of Bhoma. Land.en Volkenkunde 128:281-97.G.