Is Javanese Quran Translation part of the Javanese Literary Tradition?
May 2024
Muhammad Dluha Luthfillah
Figure 1. Or. 2097 of the Leiden University Library. Different translations for turāwidu (line 9) and rāwadtu (line 19), both of which mean ‘to desire’.
I will begin this blogpost by answering the question posed in the title. Yes, and thus the translations of the Quran into vernacular languages need to be treated as part of their own local literary traditions. With particular regard to translations in interlinear form, the limited space available to translators has made them more creative in playing with subtleties not found in the Quran’s original language, Arabic.
To make my point clearer, I will take an excerpt from two Javanese interlinear Quran translations from the eighteenth century: a manuscript from Banten, MS A.54 now kept in the National Library of the Republic of Indonesia, and a manuscript from Semarang, MS Or.2097 of Leiden University Library. To be more specific, I will discuss a group of words that are derived from the stem r-w-d (which generally means ‘to desire’) from Q. 12 (Sūrat Yūsuf).
The verses I pick here describe scenes when Zulaykha tried to seduce Yūsuf (v. 23); when news of the affair then spread all over the city and the women were gossiping about it (v. 30); and when Zulaykha proved to the women that Yūsuf’s beauty is so very exceptional that everyone will be captivated by it (v. 32). The last verse (v. 51) is depicting a scene where the king (malik) was helped by Yūsuf and, upon Yūsuf’s request, asked Zulaykha and the women of the town to clarify what happened between them and Yūsuf.
In these verses, there is one word in the form of fiʿl muḍāriʿ (present and future tense), turāwidu (v. 30), and three other words in the form of fiʿl māḍī (past tense), i.e., rāwadat (v. 23), rāwadtu (vv. 32 and 51), and rāwadtunna (v. 51). The actor (fāʿil) of the first three words (turāwidu, rāwadat, and rāwadtu) is the wife of Yūsuf’s master identified in the books of tafsīr as Zulaykha, while that of the fourth word (rāwadtunna) is given in female plural form referring to Zulaykha and women of the town.
In translating the above r-w-d derivation, the two Javanese translators used different words. The Banten manuscript (PNRI A.54) uses three words (akarĕp, arĕp, and anĕkani), while the Semarang manuscript (Leiden Or.2097) uses only two (angarĕpi and adhĕmĕn). Angarĕpi is used in the Semarang manuscript to translate all derivations of r-w-d except for the first rāwadtu in verse 32 which it translates as adhĕmĕn. It is interesting that the same rāwadtu in this verse is also treated differently by the Banten manuscript; it is the only word translated with the word arĕp. The second rāwadtu in verse 51 is translated with anĕkani, the same word it uses to translate rāwadtunna in the very verse. The words rāwadat and turāwidu were both translated as akarĕp.
What is the difference between these Javanese words employed in the translations? Why did the two Javanese translators use the same Javanese words to translate different Arabic words (rāwadat and turāwidu) on the one hand, and different Javanese words for the same Arabic word (the two rāwadtus) on the other? Why did the Bantenese translator introduce a totally new word for the two r-w-d derivations in verse 51, while the Semarang translator went back to the words that he/she used in the beginning (verse 23 and 30)?
In order to answer these questions, one cannot merely rely on one’s knowledge of Arabic. The distribution of verb actors (fāʿil) in Arabic I mentioned above, for example, shows a pattern different from that of the translation. The philological analysis of some works of tafsīr specializing in linguistics also cannot give us clear answers—all more so because we do not know whether such tafsīrs were accessible to the two Javanese translators. What helps us more is linguistic and literary analysis of the Javanese.
In two aggregator websites for Javanese dictionaries (www.sealang.net and www.sastra.org), we find that arĕp (also the root of akarĕp and angarĕpi) comes from the Old Javanese language, harĕp. Besides ‘to desire something/someone’ which fits the topic of desire addressed here, arĕp also has the meaning of ‘to want, to wish’ and ‘in front of, fore part’, the latter being quite far from desire. Tĕka also comes from Old Javanese and also has a meaning quite distant from desire, that is ‘to come to’. The addition, the prefix a- and suffix -i for angarĕpi and anĕkani aim to make the verbs transitive. Although not listed in the sealang website as a derivative form of harĕp, akarĕp is recorded in three other sources that I consulted with a meaning not far from its root: ‘to want, wish, desire for’.
The nuances of arĕp, angarĕpi, anĕkani, and akarĕp are quite different from adhĕmĕn. This last word also comes from Old Javanese and is included in the four sources above. Compared to the previous words, dhĕmĕn has less variations in meaning, either ‘to like something very much’ or ‘to love, to be pleased with someone/something’ in association to lust.
What can we make of these explanations? I suggest this has to do with the speech contexts of each word. The first two words (rāwadat and turāwidu) appear when the Quran speaks to its readers and women of the town speak to other women. In these two conversations, Zulaykha was referred to in the third person. For Javanese, in this kind of context, the choice of words to attribute to the third person (whether to use formal, polite words or the informal, casual ones) depends on the relation between the third person and both the speaker and interlocutor. In this case, the relation between Zulaykha and the speakers (Quran and the women) and interlocutors (Quran’s readers and other women) is equal, so the Javanese Quran translators did not have to use a formal or polite word.
A different feeling emerges in the first appearance of rāwadtu (verse 32). In this verse, Zulaykha is speaking in the first person to the women of the town. Even though there is no clear explanation regarding the identity of these interlocutory women, the mention of Zulaykha as the wife of al-ʿAzīz (lit. a respected person) in the Quran is enough to give Zulaykha a position higher than the women. Moreover, in this verse Zulaykha has succeeded in convincing these women of Yūsuf’s extraordinary beauty. In such a context, Zulaykha finds a kind of safe space that allows her to speak more openly about what she feels for Yūsuf. The safe space was then lost when Zulaykha and the women of the town had to go before the king (malik) and explain what they had done to Yūsuf (verse 51).
The identification of these three situations may help explain the choice of words to translate derivatives of the Arabic r-w-d. In the first neutral situation, the Javanese translators had no reason to speak very directly about desire, so they chose akarĕp and angarĕpi which hint quite clearly at desire but not as straightforwardly as adhĕmĕn. The safe space and power relations in the second context allow Zulaykha to use the direct word adhĕmĕn to express her feelings. However, she had to quickly change course and speak indirectly when discussing this matter with the king. According to the Banten translator (A.54), Zulaykha even had to resort to innuendo by using a word completely unrelated to desire, anĕkani.
Could we reach this understanding by reading tafsir works? I would rather suggest delving into Javanese literary works to identify and further comprehend its subtleties, as shown above. To put it another way, one should give the Javanese Quran translation its due as part of the Javanese literary tradition.
References:MS. PNRI A.54a-e, The National Library of the Republic of Indonesia collection.
MS. Or. 2097, Leiden University Library.