Quote:
|
Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey
The other well known feature of Javanese culture that you have drawn attention to is the habit of mixing historically supportable fact with myth.
This is not just something that is a part of folk culture, but it can sometimes be found in text books.There is probably not a great deal wrong with this, provided it is used only within the culture. After all, history itself is only a set of stories that everybody agrees upon. Probably no real harm in adding in a few myths and legends.
|
Thank you, Alan for reminding me this "bad habit", about mixing history with myth. Fact with "dongeng" (story). Yes, even in text books you may find this "javanese habit". (So, no wonder about the side-meaning of "javanais" in some French sense as 'unlogical' or sometimes 'stupid').
Inscriptions, are factual evidence. But story like "Sombro" is indeed still "dongeng". Still have no factual evidence... Also the interpretation of Pajajaran. Kingdom of Pajajaran, then people will directly remember with Pajajaran in West Java. But "tangguh pajajaran" or maybe "tangguh pejajaran" -- is not factual but interpretation. It maybe translated not as tangguh from "Pajajaran Kingdom", but "tangguh pajajaran". Like "tangguh pengging". In story (not history), Pengging was not a name of any Javanese kingdom. It was only a small -- it was said in dongeng -- but important area before the Mataram (Islamic) period. Yes, this is what you mean by "word game". But sometimes, in speaking of Javanese keris, it seems quite impossible not to mention this kind of "mixing habit".
Oral traditions in the past Javanese culture, might be different with written tradition in noting evidence, events, in the western culture. But I found too, such habit when I was learning Latin language for six years intensively during my High School time.
Learning Latin -- or maybe Greek language too -- is different with learning English or French. In Latin, people must study folklore and legends too. For instance about the making of the city of Roma. All we had learned was legend, legend and legend. Or story on Gallia, which we interpreted as Early France. Also when I learned the poems (oratory) of Cicero book on Julius Caesar. We were ought to interprete, sometimes, on the meaning of the oratory on poems. Word games too. Very, very complicated for a non Latin native as me...
Were Latin Language everyday (one or two hours in schools everyday) I've learned unlogic? Not at all. Indeed, Latin language is very logic and obligatory to grasp the law and order of the complicated grammatical structure. Sometimes, even I have a "limited belief" that if you want to learn logica you must exercise with problem solving in Latin grammar....
French. Yes, it has the root on Latin structure. But I was ought to understand the different civilization. For me, learning language is also learning civilization. So I must know the civilization of the language too. I must learn to understand the habitude of the people who are native with the language.
Sorry for wandering a little bit. Of course, this is a waroeng...
Anyway, thank you Alan, for reminding me on this habit
Ganjawulung