HANUMAN in BOSTON of the Two Ramaya∞A Reliefs from East Java

THE LADIES’ MONKEY: HANUMAN IN BOSTON

PAR

MARY BROCKINGTON

Of the two Ramaya∞a reliefs from East Java displayed in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,1 one (67.1005), showing the abduction, has attracted a certain amount of scholarly notice.2 The other, formerly captioned ‘Hanuman and Sita’ (1977.750, plate 1), merits similar attention. In this article I propose a more precise identification that has important implica- tions for the diffusion of the Rama story in southeast Asia, implying that the episode depicted on it was well known several centuries before its first known verbal record in a text geographically remote from the artefact’s find spot. The artefact is described as ‘a carved clay brick, probably from Trowulan, Eastern Java, 31.5 ≈ 19.3 cm; Javanese, Majapahit period, 14th-15th century’, and shows two figures with a small water pot between them in the background. That the monkey figure on the left with the erect tail, large earrings and huge fangs is Hanuman is not in question.3 The size and prominence of these fangs, however, raises an important issue: how can a visual artist represent what is essentially a verbal feature? It is a commonplace of visual depictions of Rama’s vanara allies, painted or carved, that in combat situations their ferocity should be emphasised

1 I am deeply grateful to the staff of the Boston MFA (particularly Laura Weinstein and Ellen Takata) for their welcome to the Museum and generous co-operation in provid- ing the photograph reproduced as plate 1. I also thank Willem van der Molen for his help with Javanese texts, and Roy Jordaan for stimulating discussions on the spread of the Rama story in SE Asia. 2 Studies: Fontein 1973; Saran and Khanna 2004: 116-17; brief mention: Levin 1999: 40. 3 Rama’s loyal monkey servant is known in some SE Asian texts variously as Anoman, Anuchit, Huluhman, Horaman, Khun Ling and – confusingly in the Philippine telling studied by Juan Francisco – Laksamana. In view of the variety of spellings and names encountered, in this article I use where possible the original Sanskrit names.

Journal Asiatique 300.1 (2012): 199-214 doi: 10.2143/JA.300.1.2186341

995635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd5635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd 199199 115/01/135/01/13 09:1609:16 200 M. BROCKINGTON

by snarls – teeth visible – but not in static poses such as this. In the Ramakien, a Thai verbal text produced in the late eighteenth century, Hanuman is identified as no ordinary monkey by his sparkling fur and jewelled teeth, in addition to the earrings that identify him more often in southeast Asian verbal tellings.4 Hanuman’s physical characteristics have a two-way recognition function, identifying him to Rama as a special creature and identifying Rama to Hanuman as the god Narai.5 At his birth he had white fur which sparkled like diamonds. His teeth were jewels… [His mother] told him that Pra Narai would be the first to mention to him that he had diamond fur and teeth. … [Rama could see that] this monkey had a diamond coronet, flashing earrings, and jewelled teeth like no forest ape…. Hanuman… recalled his mother’s words that the only one to recognize these attributes through a disguise would be Pra Narai.6 (Olsson 1968: 26-27 and 121). The Boston brick seems to present the same idea – that Hanuman is identified by his distinctive teeth. It may be that the exaggerated fangs, amounting indeed to tusks, are a genuine local east Javanese variant of the motif later to be used in Thailand,7 or they may be the sculptor’s solution to the problem of how to indicate jewelled teeth in his more limited medium. It is worth noting that the sculptors of the Ramaya∞a

4 E.g. Malay, Hikayat Seri Rama: Burch 1963: Roorda ms (earlier tradition): 39, 52; Shellabear ms (17th C): 30, 60 (translated from Zieseniss 1928: 21, 25-26, 32, 37); Khmer, Ramakerti I (16-17th C): Pou and Mikaelian 2007: 13.2169-77; Thai Ramakien (late 18th C): Olsson 1968: 120-21, 169, 341; Malay Hikayat Maharaja Ravana (late oral telling): Overbeck 1933: 118, 123. 5 The regular name for the hero in many of the SE Asian tellings, Narai (Skt. Naraya∞a), equates him with an incarnation of ViÒ∞u. Other texts retain some local pronunciation of Rama (Lam, Yama); in others the name is less immediately recognisable (Phrommacak, Mangandiri, Zhao Langma, Chung Tu). 6 Hanuman’s two abandoned sons are later told that they may identify their father by the same characteristics (Olsson 1968: 169, 341). For an amorous Hanuman being recog- nised by his jewelled canines in a slightly earlier Thai work see Schweisguth 1951: 174; cf. Schweisguth 1951: 73 and Olsson 1968: 257-64 for this episode in the Ramakien. For Hanuman’s birth characteristics in post-Valmiki S Asian lore see Lutgendorf 2007: passim, esp. pp.131, 194. 7 Carved figures of Hanuman, with erect tail and prominent front teeth (here portrayed as a devotee of Siva), produced in E Java between the 13th and 16th CC, lend weight to this suggestion (Klokke 1994: 187, pls 11, 12).

Journal Asiatique 300.1 (2012): 199-214

995635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd5635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd 200200 115/01/135/01/13 09:1609:16 THE LADIES’ MONKEY: HANUMAN IN BOSTON 201

friezes at Prambanan and Panataran (central and eastern Java, ninth and fourteenth centuries respectively) did not employ any such technique, nor do the gigantic fangs seem to have been used in Thailand or elsewhere.8 At Prambanan Hanuman and all other vanaras had been shown in natu- ralistic monkey-form, naked and bare-headed, but at Panataran, much closer chronologically and geographically to the Trowulan brick, Hanuman is distinguished by his elaborate head-dress and earrings. There are two reasons why the scene cannot, as supposed, show Hanu- man discovering Sita in the asokavana and exchanging recognition tokens with her. Indeed, the woman on the right does not correspond to the Sita found in any telling of the Rama story that I have met. The first reason is that Hanuman is firmly gripping her right arm. They are not simply holding hands: physical intimacy, even of that order, would be unthink- able. Sita is universally and repeatedly vehement in her denial that she has ever voluntarily let any male other than Rama touch her, to the extent that in some tellings that is the reason she gives for refusing Hanuman’s offer to carry her back to Rama. Other carvings of the meeting, from a wide variety of sites, show Hanuman seated or kneeling respectfully before Sita, with a clear gap between them.9 The action here is not that of exchanging recognition tokens: neither Rama’s ring nor Sita’s hair ornament can be seen; nor is any possible substitute visible. It looks more like the action of a captor taking good care that his captive does not escape. The second reason is that pose and demeanour of both persons, however, reflect a different attitude. Hanuman eager, tender, pleading; the captive woman not pulling away in fear but coyly considering the proposition the monkey is whispering into her ear – and finding that proposition as attractive as Hanuman obviously finds her body. This woman cannot be Sita.

8 Kats 1925; Saran and Khanna 2004; Roveda 2005: e.g. 193 fig.4.6.93 and 482 fig.10.1026. 9 For an early Indian example see Bhattacharya and Pal 1991: 57 fig.1 (6th C relief from Nachar Khera, Haryana); for examples from Angkor Wat (Cambodia, 12th C) and elsewhere see Roveda 2005: 129 figs.4.4.60-67, 315 fig.8.80, 364 fig.218, 482 fig.10.1026 (in the last two a recognition token is clearly visible); and for a Javanese example see Kats 1925: fig.36 or Saran and Khanna 2004: 57 (Prambanan).

Journal Asiatique 300.1 (2012): 199-214

995635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd5635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd 201201 115/01/135/01/13 09:1609:16 202 M. BROCKINGTON

The third element in the scene, the water pot, also has no place in the asokavana episode; in those episodes where Hanuman identifies himself as Rama’s envoy by dropping the recognition token into Sita’s bathing water, he is necessarily absent until later.10 There is an episode that fits this scene perfectly, but it is not recorded in a datable verbal text until the Ramakien, which was not composed until the late eighteenth century, and was composed not in Java but in Thailand. After the defection to Rama of VibhiÒa∞a,11 Rava∞a12 retali- ates by enslaving his daughter Benjakai, then coerces her into impersonating Sita (hence the woman’s rich clothing and ornament); in order to demoralise Rama she pretends to be dead and floats to the vanara encampment, where she is discovered by Rama, Hanuman and others when they go to take their morning bath (hence the water pot). Hanuman suspects a trick and arranges for the supposed corpse to be cremated, whereupon Benjakai rapidly comes back to life and confesses. Rama forgives her and instructs Hanuman to take her back to Lanka, which he does (hence the grip on her arm). The Hanuman of the Thai version, however, has a distinctively erotic side to his nature not found in most tellings,13 and he seduces Benjakai before leaving her in Lanka at the end of a day of passion: Hanuman took Benjakai back to Longka, carrying her over in his arms. When he landed, he held her to caress her and say sweet things to her. The fires of love burned at his heart. The beautiful demon’s will to resist wea- kened. Moved by the might of the monkey, she sank to the ground. The woman, who had been so cunning, now fell to the cunning of the monkey. She forgot the twenty-armed King [Rava∞a] and her message, loving the monkey who made her heart leap for joy.

10 E.g. Overbeck 1933: 123. 11 In the SE Asian tellings the name of Rava∞a’s disloyal brother appears as Piphek / Bhibek / Bibusanam / Piyasa (multiple spellings), and sometimes as Nanda and as Totsa Kiree Wong. 12 The name of Rama’s enemy, the rakÒasa king, is spelled Lawana or Rabana / Rab in parts of SE Asia; he is also known as Totsakan, Totsagri, Phommachak, Pengmajia, Ramana, Wiroharaja, and Trang-minh, or by a name reflecting his ten heads (Dasagiri, Dasakanth). 13 The development of Hanuman’s celibacy in S Asian tradition, and occasional tension between this concept and ideas of monkey sexuality are analysed by Philip Lutgendorf (2007: passim, esp. pp.320-31).

Journal Asiatique 300.1 (2012): 199-214

995635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd5635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd 202202 115/01/135/01/13 09:1609:16 THE LADIES’ MONKEY: HANUMAN IN BOSTON 203

Late in the evening Benjakai arrived at the palace of Longka and told of the failure of the mission. (Olsson 1968: 161-64; quotation from p. 164).14 In fact, this Hanuman cannot resist a woman. Like the proverbial “ladies’ man”, he routinely makes love to almost every female he encounters (including Rava∞a’s wife), with the exception – of course – of Sita. Most of these sexual encounters are inconsequential, and some of the partners seem to have been created for the sole purpose of gratifying the monkey’s amorous instincts,15 but Benjakai is given a continuing role. At a later point in the increasingly fantastic and magic-driven Thai plot, it is essential for the vanaras to obtain the water in which a rakÒasi has washed her feet; Hanuman remembers Benjakai and goes to Lanka to obtain some from her (again taking sexual advantage of the opportunity).16 There is a theoretical possibility that this second encounter is the scene represented on the Boston brick, explaining the presence of the water pot, but unless any more bricks in the series turn up and a sequence can be established that would support an identification with this second encounter, I think the original captive seduction is the more likely explanation.17 Visual representations, especially stone carvings, can play a crucial role in our understanding of the transmission of a traditional story. In South and Southeast Asia manuscripts rarely survive for more than a few generations before they have to be recopied, so verbal texts cannot be securely dated

14 For a detailed translation into French of the Benjakai episode see Karpelès 1925. A similar episode is found in the Chalermnit Ramakien (1967: 56-57). 15 E.g. Butsamali and her sister Suwannamali (Olsson 1968: 136-37). 16 Olsson 1968: 254. The idea of the efficacy of a beautiful woman’s bathing water may, like other elements of the SE Asian Rama story, have been developed from Jain tradition. The 8th-9th C Apabhraμsa narrator Svayambhu tells of Hanuman’s successful quest for Visalya’s bathing water to heal the desperately-wounded LakÒma∞a (Nagar 2002: 68-69), but I have not come across that episode in SE Asian tellings, nor does it seem appropriate here. 17 Eventually Benjakai is given to Hanuman in marriage as a reward for his service and bears him a son Asuraphad who carries on the fight against Rava∞a’s descendants and allies in the next generation (Olsson 1968: 331-32; 340-42). One other of Hanuman’s conquests also has a narrative purpose; the Queen of the Fish bears him a son who plays a role when Hanuman rescues Rama from the Underworld (Olsson 1968: 169-70, 186-87); this son appears in many tellings of the Rama story, but he is more usually conceived inadvertently, in what may be a conscious effort to preserve the narrative motif without destroying the image of Hanuman as celibate.

Journal Asiatique 300.1 (2012): 199-214

995635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd5635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd 203203 115/01/135/01/13 09:1609:16 204 M. BROCKINGTON

to a period earlier than that of the oldest available re-copying, although linguistic and narrative features may well indicate that some of the con- tents are much older. This is particularly true of orally-transmitted nar- ratives, rarely collected in any scientific fashion before the late nineteenth century. However, when carvings survive (especially those built into datable temples), age and location can be fixed with a greater degree of plausibility. More crucially, the very nature of a visual text reveals more about the development of a story than does the corresponding verbal text. The occurrence of a motif in a verbal text presents no more than a terminus post quem; it tells us only that the motif is known to the teller, who may have learned it from abroad, in another language, and be introducing it to his tale for the first time, or he may perhaps have devised or modified it himself. It tells us nothing about whether the motif is already familiar to the audience, for its novelty can be explained in words; and tellers and audiences alike do tend to appreciate novelty as well as familiarity. In the case of pictures and sculptures the situation is almost the reverse. It is not just that viewers enjoy identifying the episodes; they can do so only if they already know the story depicted. The presence of a motif in a visual narrative indicates that it was already well known in that area before the painter or sculptor set to work – a terminus ante quem. Assum- ing that dating and find spot are reliable (and I see no reason to doubt them), the Boston brick demonstrates that a tale of seduction by Hanuman was already well known in the area of Trowulan, eastern Java, before the fourteenth or fifteenth century, some four hundred years before the Benjakai episode was written down in Thai, and in an area where that episode has not been found recorded in verbal tradition. That is not to say that the Benjakai episode was unknown in verbal tradition either in Thai-speaking areas or in Java before the Ramakien came to be written. The Rama story in some form had been known and popular in Thailand at least from the thirteenth century, and possibly several centuries earlier (Reynolds 1991: 55). The problem is that hard evidence of its narrative content is almost completely lacking; if any written texts existed they were lost when the capital was sacked in 1767. The efforts made only a few years later by successive rulers to revive and propagate the Rama story, which they clearly saw as a stabilising agent, testify to its importance to Thai culture, and led to the production of a

Journal Asiatique 300.1 (2012): 199-214

995635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd5635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd 204204 115/01/135/01/13 09:1609:16 THE LADIES’ MONKEY: HANUMAN IN BOSTON 205

number of written texts, most notably the Ramakien (Reynolds 1991). How far the details in these tellings conserved older Thai traditions, how far they drew on versions current in India or other areas of southeast Asia, and how far they were genuinely innovative is an open question. What cannot be questioned is the popularity the Benjakai episode has subsequently enjoyed in Thai or Thai-influenced areas, from shortly after the date of the Ramakien, illustrated by a number of texts, verbal and visual, all of which can safely be assumed to be dependent on it.18 Less conclusive is the evidence of two similar episodes. One occurs in the Loik Samoing Ram, an oral version studied by Toru Ohno from the Mon area that straddles the present Myanmar / Thailand border; it has been seen to have affinities with many differing southeast Asian versions (Ohno 1995, and 1996: 370).19 Its oral nature means that it cannot be dated, making it impossible to determine whether it is a source of the Ramakien, a derivative from it, or associated with some other version still unknown. The other episode is found in attenuated form in a Lao text studied by Pierre-Bernard Lafont in which Hanuman is celibate and VibhiÒa∞a’s daughter absent: the corpse is impersonated by a male rakÒasa and killed on discovery, not taken back to Lanka.20 In the different Lao telling studied by Sachchidanand Sahai, the supposed corpse is a transformed banana trunk.21 None of this brings us any closer to Java or to a problem-free identification of the scene portrayed on the Boston brick. The Benjakai story, as it is now presented, has not been reported outside the Thai- and Mon- speaking areas until far too late to be relevant. No corresponding episode has been found in early verbal Rama material in Javanese accessible to

18 Chagsuchinda 1973 (maiden named Nang Loi); panels 69-76 of the Rama reliefs at Wat Phra Jetubon, Bangkok (Cadet 1982: 126-34); frescoes and shadow puppets at Siem Reap (Wat Bho / Vatt Pubi; plate 2, lower left), frescoes at Phnom Penh and reliefs at Battambang, Cambodia (Giteau 1969; name: Punnakaya; see also Pou 1980: 28); Maha Rama Vatthu, a 19th C version differing from earlier Myanmar tellings by incorporating this and other episodes found in the Ramakien (Ohno 1999: 3; name: Yekkhaniya). 19 The woman is here named Suponnakha, which might be thought to imply that the character has been conflated with the Valmiki version’s Surpa∞akha; however in the Loik Samoing Ram Rava∞a’s sister goes by the name of Sammanukot. 20 Lafont 2003: 122-23. 21 Sahai 1996: II, 271-72.

Journal Asiatique 300.1 (2012): 199-214

995635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd5635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd 205205 115/01/135/01/13 09:1609:16 206 M. BROCKINGTON

me; it does not appear in the Ramayana Kakawin (tenth century; Santoso 1980) or in the carved friezes at Prambanan or Panataran. Nor does Hanu- man’s promiscuity find any more favour in Muslim Java than it does in the majority of Buddhist southeast Asia, Thailand always excepted. How- ever, there is one hint in the Malay Hikayat Seri Rama that the erotic aspect of his character may not have been entirely unknown in Indonesia too. The Hikayat is a vast, sprawling and increasingly-Islamised compila- tion of local traditions, known to have circulated more widely than just in modern Malaysia, including in Java. The manuscripts studied by Alexander Zieseniss are silent about a corpse impersonated by VibhiÒa∞a’s daughter, but do record an episode involving an alternative daughter of VibhiÒa∞a, the rudiments of which can be traced back to the earliest known Sanskrit telling. Rava∞a tries to convince the captive Sita that he has killed her husband by showing her Rama’s illusory decapitated head. One of Sita’s captors, a rakÒasi called Sarama but otherwise unidentified, consoles her and offers to visit the vanara encampment to reassure her that Rama is in fact alive: Black-eyed lady, I would make bold to go in secret to Rama myself and give him a message from you to tell him you are well, and then to come back. 6,25.3; (Brockington and Brockington 2006: 270) Sita gratefully accepts Sarama’s friendship, but rejects her suggestion,22 more usefully asking her instead to eavesdrop on Rava∞a and his Council of War. By the time of the mediaeval commentators, Sarama was firmly identified as VibhiÒa∞a’s wife, no doubt because of their similar sympa- thies. Another rakÒasi, Trija†a, equally unidentified in the Sanskrit text, is also kind to Sita. In the vernacular tradition the roles of these friendly rakÒasis and their relationship to VibhiÒa∞a were much developed, often conflated under the name Trija†a (Bulcke 1964). This expanded role for VibhiÒa∞a’s daughter Trija†a had been known to Javanese tradition from as early as the tenth century at least. It is used in the Old Javanese Rama- yana Kakawin, where after the episode of the illusory heads of Rama and LakÒma∞a, Trija†a flies to Suvela to consult her father VibhiÒa∞a, who

22 In the Assamese version by Madhava Kandali (14th C), Sarama spies on Rava∞a then on her own initiative flies to the vanara camp and brings back news of Rama to Sita (Nagar 2000: II, 72-73).

Journal Asiatique 300.1 (2012): 199-214

995635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd5635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd 206206 115/01/135/01/13 09:1609:16 THE LADIES’ MONKEY: HANUMAN IN BOSTON 207

reassures her that Rama is alive; she reports back and reassures Sita.23 There is no corresponding episode in the Sanskrit Bha††ikavya, on which much of the Kakawin is based. The tradition appearing in the Hikayat Seri Rama differs slightly, but follows a similar pattern, with the rakÒasi identified as VibhiÒa∞a’s daughter, Dewi Srijati (her name apparently derived from Trija†a), and the sig- nificant addition that she is taken back to Lanka by Hanuman. There is no mention of the feigned corpse, or any attempt to deceive Rama. When Sita catches sight of the heads she wants to stab herself. Dewi Srijati restrains her as the truth of Rava∞a’s assertions is yet to be proved and offers to go in quest of Rama to make quite certain; Sita agrees to this. The rakÒasi goes to Rama from whom she receives a belt, once woven by Sita, as a token of his well being and is taken back to Lanka by Hanuman. (Burch 1963: 68, Zieseniss 1928: 41 [abbreviations expanded]) Zieseniss based this summary on the Roorda manuscript, but added discrepancies he found in another copying, the Shellabear manuscript, which (though itself the older copying) reflects a later stage in the process of increasing Islamisation, deferring to Muslim sensibilities by removing or modifying some of the elements more likely to cause offence (Barrett 1963: 543). In the Shellabear manuscript the issue of propriety is raised: Dewi Srijati bids Hanuman accompany her on the homeward journey. He refuses to approach a woman with whom he is not acquainted but obeys Rama’s command when the latter declares that she is his sister; also Hanuman only agrees to carry his weary companion because she stresses the necessity of her speedy return. (Burch 1963: 68-69, Zieseniss 1928: 41-42) Such a studied insistence on propriety strongly suggests that a tale involving exactly the reverse, too well-established to be simply jettisoned, is being deliberately contradicted. Of course, the two episodes are quite different, and occur at different points in the narrative. Benjakai visits the vanara camp before the cause- way has been built (she floats along the intervening water), but Srijati’s visit occurs after the army has crossed and the battle is in full swing. But both involve a daughter of VibhiÒa∞a visiting the vanara encampment,

23 Santoso 1980: 17.69-90.

Journal Asiatique 300.1 (2012): 199-214

995635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd5635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd 207207 115/01/135/01/13 09:1609:16 208 M. BROCKINGTON

meeting Rama and being taken back to Lanka by Hanuman; whether two distinct daughters are involved, or whether we regard Benjakai as the same person as Trija†a / Srijati with a different story attached to her, is immaterial. We might speculate that the Thai version had displaced the Srijati episode to earlier in the plot, renaming the rakÒasi,24 and giving her a more romantic, if more blood-curdling, role entirely consistent with the general outlook of the Ramakien, if it were not for one detail in the Shellabear manuscript: Srijati must be carried because she is too tired to return by her own efforts. Benjakai has crossed – at the least – a broad expanse of water, and would be entitled to be weary, even if she did not have to be escorted back as a potential enemy agent, but Srijati has flown no farther than the besieging army’s encampment beneath the walls of Lanka. It is unlikely that her plea of tiredness is a coquettish attempt to flirt with Hanuman, but more plausible to see it as a remnant from a story when the vanara camp was genuinely still a long way from Lanka. It is even possible that the Boston brick in fact portrays, not Hanuman making love to Benjakai, but Hanuman making love to Srijati. Against this alternative identification is the presence of the water pot, obviously sig- nificant, but unexplained in Zieseniss’ paraphrase of the Hikayat. Moreover the textile draped over the woman’s left wrist is unlikely to be a rather oversized representation of the belt that Sita’s rakÒasi friend takes back to the asokavana as proof that she has seen Rama: two other unconnected artefacts demonstrate that to stand with a fold of her garment draped over her left wrist is a standard pose for a Javanese woman.25 It would be dangerous to build too much on such speculation in the absence of firmer corroboration in an extant verbal text. What does however seem highly likely is that an erotic tale concerning Hanuman was circulating in Java by the time the Shellabear manuscript of the Hikayat Seri Rama was copied. There is inferential evidence that the manuscript was brought to England from the Aceh area of northwest Sumatra in 1612 (Barrett 1963: 531, n. 8). The importance of the Boston

24 In the Thai Ramakien Trija†a (Treechada) is VibhiÒa∞a’s wife, and therefore Benjakai’s mother (Olsson 1968: 155). 25 Soemantri 1997: 103, figs 87 A and B; Muller 1978: 88, pl.170 (see further on pp.90, 106).

Journal Asiatique 300.1 (2012): 199-214

995635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd5635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd 208208 115/01/135/01/13 09:1609:16 THE LADIES’ MONKEY: HANUMAN IN BOSTON 209

brick is that it appears to provide hard evidence that the motif of Hanu- man’s promiscuity was current in eastern Java by the fourteenth or at the latest fifteenth century – perhaps earlier – a hundred or two years before it was specifically denied by the redactors of the Hikayat Seri Rama, and at least three or four centuries before the story of Benjakai and Hanuman was written down in Thailand. It is often said that the pen is mightier than the sword; but when it comes to determining the development of a narrative motif, the stylus can often be less mighty than the chisel.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BARRETT, E.C.G. 1963: “Further light on Sir Richard Winstedt’s ‘Undescribed Malay Version of the Ramayana’ ”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 26: 531-43. BHATTACHARYA, Gouriswar and Pratapaditya Pal 1991: “Early Ramayana reliefs from Bangladesh”, Orientations 22.8: 57-62. [Bha††ikavya] Fallon, Oliver (trans.) 2009: Bhatti’s Poem: The Death of Rávana (New York: New York University Press and JJC Foundation). BROCKINGTON, John and Mary Brockington (trans.) 2006: Rama the Steadfast: an Early Form of the Ramaya∞a (London: Penguin Books). BULCKE, Camille 1964: “Sita’s Friend Trija†a”, Indian Antiquary Third Series 1: 55-63. BURCH, P.W. (trans.) 1963: The Rama Saga in Malaysia (Singapore: Malaysian Sociological Research Institute) [trans. of Zieseniss 1928]. CADET, J.M. 1982: The Ramakien: the Stone Rubbings of the Thai Epic, illustrated with the bas-reliefs of Wat Phra Jetubon, Bangkok (Tokyo: Kodansha International / Bangkok: Central Department Store, 1st edn. 1971, new edn 1975). [Chalermnit Ramakien] 1967: Ramayana: Masterpiece of Thai Literature Retold from the Original Version Written by King Rama I of Siam (2nd edn, Bang- kok: Chalermnit Bookshop). [English trans. of a popularising summary / retelling] CHAGSUCHINDA, Pensak (trans.) 1973: Nang Loi, the Floating Maiden: a Rec- itation from an Episode of the Ramakien, a Thai Version of the India Epic Ramayana, by Rama II, King of Thailand (1809-1824), Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies, Monograph series 18 (Lund: Studentlitteratur). FONTEIN, Jan 1973: “The Abduction of Sita: Notes on a Stone Relief from Eastern Java”, Bulletin of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (Boston, MA) 21.363: 21-35. FRANCISCO, Juan R. 1994: From Ayodhya to Pulu Agamaniog: Rama’s Journey to the Philippines (Quezon City: Asian Center, University of the Philippines).

Journal Asiatique 300.1 (2012): 199-214

995635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd5635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd 209209 115/01/135/01/13 09:1609:16 210 M. BROCKINGTON

GITEAU, Madeleine 1969: “À propos d’un épisode du Ramakerti représenté à Vatt Pubi (Siem Rap)”, Arts asiatiques 19: 107-21. KARPELÈS, Suzanne 1925: “Un épisode du Ramaya∞a siamois”, in Études asiatiques publiées à l’occasion du vingt-cinquième anniversaire de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient par ses membres et ses collaborateurs. EFEO 19, 2 vols, I, 315-42 (Paris: G. van Oest). KATS, Jacob 1925: Het Râmâyana op javaansche tempel reliefs: The Ramayana as Sculptured in Reliefs in Javanese Temples (München: Georg Muller / Batavia, Leiden: G. Kolff). KLOKKE, Marijke J. 1994: “The So-called Portrait Statues in East Javanese Art”, in Ancient Indonesian Sculpture, ed. by Marijke J. Klokke and Pauline Lunsingh Scheurleer, 178-201 (Leiden: KITLV Press). LAFONT, Pierre-Bernard (trans.) 2003: Phommachak: Ramayana tay loe de Muang Sing (Haut Mékong), présentation et traduction du tay loe par Pierre- Bernard Lafont (Paris: Centre d’Histoire et Civilisations de la Péninsule Indochinoise). LEVIN, Cecelia 1999: “Classical Javanese Gold Reflects Some New Light on the Ramayana”, in Precious Metals in Early South East Asia: Proceedings of the Second Seminar on Gold Studies, ed. by Wilhelmina H. Kal: 39-44 (Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute). LUTGENDORF, Philip 2007: Hanuman’s Tale: The Messages of a Divine Monkey (Oxford University Press: New York). MULLER, H.R.A. 1978: Javanese Terracotta: terra incognita (Lochem: Tijd- stroom). NAGAR, Shanti Lal (trans.) 2000: Madhava Kandali Ramaya∞a, Composed in Assamese, 2 vols. Ramaya∞a in Regional Languages 1 (New Delhi: Mun- shiram Manoharlal). NAGAR, Shantilal (trans.) 2002: Jain Ramaya∞a: Paumacaryu: Rendering into English from Apabhramsa (Delhi: B.R. PC). OHNO, Toru 1995: “Some Features of the Mon Rama story”, in Silver Jubilee Special Lectures, ed. by R. Vijayalakshmy, 234-50 (Madras: International Institute of Tamil Studies). Id. 1996: “Salient Features of the Mon Version of the Rama Story”, Tonan Ajia Kenkyu 34.2: 370-86 [in Japanese; English summary on pp. 370-71]. Id. (trans.) 1999: A Study of Burmese Rama Story with an English Translation (Osaka: University of Foreign Studies). OLSSON, Ray A. (trans.) 1968: The Ramakien: a Prose Translation of the Thai Ramayana (Bangkok: Praepittaya Co.). OVERBECK, H. 1933: “Hikayat Maharaja Ravana”, Journal of the Malay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 11.2: 111-32. POU, Saveros 1980: “Some Proper Names in the Khmer Ramakerti”, South East Asian Review (Gaya) 5.2: 19-29, repr. in Ramaya∞a in South East Asia, ed. by Sachchidanand Sahai (Gaya: Centre for South East Asian Studies, 1981).

Journal Asiatique 300.1 (2012): 199-214

995635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd5635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd 210210 115/01/135/01/13 09:1609:16 THE LADIES’ MONKEY: HANUMAN IN BOSTON 211

POU, Saveros and Grégory Mikaelian (trans.) 2007: Ramakerti I “La Gloire de Rama”: Drame épique médiéval du Cambodge (Paris: L’Harmattan). REYNOLDS, Frank E. 1991: “Ramaya∞a, Rama Jataka, and Ramakien: a Com- parative Study of Hindu and Buddhist Traditions”, in Many Ramaya∞as: the Diversity of a Narrative Tradition in South Asia, ed. by Paula Richman: 50-63 (Berkeley: University of California Press). ROVEDA, Vittorio 2005: Images of the Gods: Khmer Mythology in Cambodia, Thailand and Laos (Bangkok: River Books). SAHAI, Sachchidanand 1996: The Rama Jataka in Laos: a Study in the Phra Lak Phra Lam, 2 vols (Delhi: B.R. PC). SANTOSO, Soewito (ed. and trans.) 1980: Ramayana Kakawin, 3 vols, Sata-pi†aka Series, Indo-Asian literatures 251 (New Delhi: Sharada Rani). SARAN, Malini and Vinod C. Khanna 2004: The Ramayana in Indonesia (New Delhi: Ravi Dayal). SCHWEISGUTH, Paul 1951: Étude sur la littérature siamoise (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale). SOEMANTRI, Hilda 1997: Majapahit terracotta art (Jakarta: Ceramic Society of Indonesia). ZIESENISS, Alexander 1928: Die Rama-Sage bei den Malaien (Hamburg: Fried- erichsen and de Gruyter).

ABSTRACT A relief from East Java in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, formerly captioned ‘Hanuman and Sita’, shows a monkey and a woman in a pose far too intimate for this identification to be plausible. In this article I explain my reasons for believing it instead to show Hanuman courting Benjakai, an episode that is not known to appear in verbal texts until several hundred years later in the Thai Ramakien, and I examine hints in the Malay tradition that may confirm the episode’s earlier circulation in Java. Keywords: Rama story in SE Asia / Rama story in Java / Rama story in Thailand/ Mon Rama story/ Ramakien / Hikayat Seri Rama / Hanuman / Benjakai/ Supon- nakha

RÉSUMÉ Un relief provenant de l’est de Java, exposé au Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, et portant autrefois la légende «Hanuman and Sita», montre un singe et une femme prenant une pose bien trop intime pour qu’une telle identification soit plausible. Dans cet article je résume les raisons qui me portent à croire que le sujet du relief est plutôt Hanuman en train de faire sa cour à Benjakai, épisode qu’on sait ne se trouver dans les textes que plusieurs siècles plus tard, dans le Ramakien thai;

Journal Asiatique 300.1 (2012): 199-214

995635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd5635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd 211211 115/01/135/01/13 09:1609:16 212 M. BROCKINGTON

quelques allusions trouvées dans la tradition malaise pourraient confirmer la supposition que cet épisode circulait à Java à une époque bien plus haute qu’on ne l’aurait pensé. Mots clés: histoire de Rama au sud-est asiatique / histoire de Rama à Java / histoire de Rama en Thaïlande / histoire Mon de Rama / Ramakien / Hikayat Seri Rama / Hanuman / Benjakai/ Suponnakha

Journal Asiatique 300.1 (2012): 199-214

995635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd5635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd 212212 115/01/135/01/13 09:1609:16 THE LADIES’ MONKEY: HANUMAN IN BOSTON 213

Journal Asiatique 300.1 (2012): 199-214

995635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd5635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd 213213 115/01/135/01/13 09:1609:16 214 M. BROCKINGTON

Plate 2. Benjakai on seashore, impersonating corpse of Sita, mourned by Rama (left panel); captured by monkeys (lower) and being carried back to Lanka by an eager-looking Hanuman (upper, right panel). © J.L. Brockington.

Journal Asiatique 300.1 (2012): 199-214

995635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd5635_JA2012/1_09_Brockington.indd 214214 115/01/135/01/13 09:1609:16