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 arte- fact’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 115/01/135/01/13 009:169:16 200 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 115/01/135/01/13 009:169:16 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, how- ever, reflect a different attitude. Hanuman eager, tender, pleading; the captive woman not pulling away in fear but coyly considering the propo- sition 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 115/01/135/01/13 009:169:16 202 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 imper- sonating 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.