Installment #7

Characterisation in Hikayat Hang Tuah

CHAPTER II

GENERAL CHARACTERISATION

The Major Characters (excepting Hang Jebat and Hang Tuah)

Patih Gajah Muda

Patih Gajah Muda dominates the court of Majapahit. He seems to be the villain in the story. But he does not come out so well as such. The pattern of his scheming is so uniform that it bores. His dogged persistence to kill Hang Tuah withers all of a sudden after the death of Seri Batara; it looks as though he has undergone a drastic change. But the change, if it occurs at all, is not shown.

He is ambitious, ruthless and jealous of his power. The image of ambition and ruthlessness in his character is effectively built up before the reader actually comes in direct contact with him. The reader first gets a glimpse of his scheming through the report of the pirates taken prisoners by Hang Tuah and his four comrades.[i] Then the Bendahara makes a reference to it in a conversation with the headman (batin) of Singapura.[ii] Then before the royal mission to ask for the hand of Sri Batara’s daughter departs for Majapahit, the Bendahara warns the officers about the character of Patih Gajah Mada.[iii] Again before the subsequent departure of the Sultan for Majapahit in order to marry Raden Mas Ayu, the Bendahara gives the royal escorts another piece of his mind about him.[iv] The reader is thus prepared to meet this ruthless and ambitious man.

There seems to be no doubt that he dominates his king. A very respectable and honest Javanese courier, Radin Aria, twice testifies to this.[v] The king must therefore be in league with him because it is he who first suggests to the Patih the idea of molesting the Malay envoys as they proceed to the court.[vi] When Hang Tuah comes again with the Sultan on the second visit, it is he who also brings up the question of killing the Laksamana.[vii] It looks as though both of them are working together. Nevertheless, their power relationship is none too clear. On the one hand we find the Seri Batara completely identifying himself with the Putih’s policy toward Melaka; on the other, we find him putting his first minister to shame before Hang Tuah and the other members of the Malay party and indeed before the whole court of Majapahit.[viii]

It is difficult to explain the situation. That Patih Gajah Mada dominates Seri Batara is, in my opinion, a fact. The irregular behavior of the latter is to be attributed to his stupidity and simple-mindedness.[ix]

His character is blurred by the similar pattern of his techniques to trap Hang Tuah. He appears to be inhumanly dogged in his efforts. Amidst this, however, comes a new convincing trait: jealousy. He resents the Temenggung because it is he who hits upon the brilliant idea of attacking the Malay party as it comes from Tuban.[x] He must have recognized the soundness of the idea although he does not acknowledge it. Seri Batara is in favour of it and the fact that it is not carried out further shows the extent of his power.

The motivating force in his character is ambition. But the end of his days is shown to be quiet and pious. After so much evidence of tenacity and optimism in works of sabotage and conspiracy, he turns out to be a comparatively good man.[xi] What has taken place? We are told that his master has died and that his grandson Raden Bahar, has been installed the new Seri Batara.[xii] These are happenings too inconsequential to have wrought such a change in a character like Path Gajah Mada.

Tun Teja

Tun Teja, the daughter of Bendahara Seri Buana of Inderapura, is a very interesting,[xiii] though a rather puzzling personality. She might pass for the heroine of the story. Possessed of a strong character, she has decided views on marriage. These views, however, are not quite clearly resolved in her mind. She has the characteristic aloofness of a princess, but can be a very passionate lover. As a woman she displays well the feminine contradictions in her character. She is intelligent and makes a wise counselor.

We are first introduced to her as a beautiful princess whose hand is being sought everywhere, but who refuses to marry.[xiv] When the Sultan of Melaka asks for her hand, she refuses him too, against the wishes and advice of her father and the Sultan of Inderapura. Her reasons would appear to be social.[xv] But later on in the book, a conversation among her attendants on the subject of her undoubtedly forced engagement to Megat Panji Alam gives the impression that she had refused Raja Melaka because she thought him not good enough for her.[xvi] This impression is confirmed by what she says herself to Mak Inang in a flood of rage.[xvii] These incidents make it difficult for the reader to get a clear idea of what she thinks of marriage. It may be that the ‘writer’ is right in stating that she does not want to marry.[xviii] If so, she protests to her father and the Sultan were mere excuses and her violent outburst to Mak Inang was just an extreme expression of her feminine pride and contradiction.[xix]

The change comes when Tuah applies his love-charm to her.[xx] This is not an impossible development in a society where belief in magico-ascetic power holds sway. She falls passionately for him and thus – it is interesting to note—she becomes Hang Tuah’s first and ultimate deliverer, the instrument by which he regains favour from the Sultan, the first sacrifice of his feudal loyalty, and indeed, the first stated sacrifice of the Hikayat Hang-Tuah feudalism itself.[xxi]

Forthright and unorthodox though she is, she does not like Jebat’s behaviour in court when he assumes the office of Laksamana. Most probably she, like the Bendahara (and also Hang Tuah) does not realize, much less appreciate, Jebat’s motives. At first she does not seem to object very much to the presence of Jebat in court in place of Hang Tuah.[xxii] Later when her husband-sultan complains, she mildly rebukes him for not having listened to the advice of his senior minister.[xxiii]

There is a characteristic feminine touch in the way she obtains what she wants. She appeals to her natural weakness. The incident of her father’s death illustrates this clearly.[xxiv] She is thus not only an interesting character but realistically depicted.

Next: Installment #8: Patih Karma Wijaya

---

[i] While still I Bintan and not yet in the royal service, Hang Tuah and his four associates one day went out on a boating expedition. On the way they were attacked by a group of pirates. In the ensuing flight they managed to outwit the pirates and took ten wounded prisoners. It was these prisoners who gave out that they had been induced by Patih Gajah Mada to go on a campaign of brigandage (Cf. pp. 22-27).

[ii] Cf. p.28.

[iii] Cf. p. 104.

[iv] Cf. p. 124.

[v] Cf. pp 140 & 253.

[vi] Cf. p. 106.

[vii] Cf. p. 133

[viii] We refer to two similar incidents when it was contrived to steal Hang Tuah’s keris while he was in attendance at the Majapahit court. On both occasions when the Laksamana realised that his keris was gone from his waist he, in turn, by some mysterious power, got hold of the Patih’s keris (the Patih was sitting beside him). As soon as Hang Tuah’s keris was handed over to Seri Batara by the paid stealer, Seri Batara (on the first occasion) asked to see the Patih’s keris, with the intention probably of asking to see the Laksamana’s after that, thereby making him realise that his keris was lost. In this way the Patih was put to shame (Cf. p. 156). On the second occasion the Batara asked to see the Laksamana’s first. When the latter produce it, he foolishly went to ask for the poor Patih’s thus putting the old man to shame again (Cf. 255).

[ix] This quality of his has been referred to in our discussion of his character.

[x] Cf. pp. 278-279.

[xi] There was no attempt at treachery when Hang Tuah came again ro escort Raden Bahar (Cf. pp. 394-395).

[xii] Cf. pp. 393-395.

[xiii] It is worth noting that the most interesting character in the minor category is also a woman.

[xiv] Cf. p. 97.

[xv] She suffers from a class-inferiority complex; the Sultan of Melaka belonged to a higher stratum She argued that only “birds of a feather flock together” (yang enggang itu sama enggang juga; yang pipit itu sama pipit juga – p. 99).

[xvi] That is, when Tuah sends his salaam to her (Cf. pp. 200-201).

[xvii] Cf. p. 97.

[xviii] Cf. p. 97.

[xix] The fact that she said she would drink poison if forced to marry the Megat tends to substantiate this view (Cf. p. 191) because of the Sultan of Melaka is too high for her, then the Megat is surely her match.

[xx] Cf. p. 203.

[xxi] The Bendahara, of course, delivers him temporarily in this first occasion as he also does on the second. On the latter occasion it is Jebat who ultimately saves him and who is the second stated but more tragic sacrifice of that same feudal world.

[xxii] Cf. p. 309. Here she reflects that if Jebat persists in behaving in such a presumptuous manner, he would not last long either, indicating that she accepts the Sultan’s judgement of Hang Tuah.

[xxiii] Cf. p. 313.

[xxiv] She had sent Jebat’s son, Hang Madim, to see her father at Inderaputera. It happened that this time the country was being harassed by sword-fish (todak). Hang Madim suggested a bright idea which consequently saved the lives of many people. For this the Sultan awarded him the title of Orang Kaya Sang Si-Tuah. The other ministers and officials became jealous and conspired to bring disgrace eon him. But so long as Teja’s father, the Bendahara, was alive they dared not carry out their evil plan. Soon, however, the Bendahara died. Immediately the Temenggung who wanted the Bendaharaship led the conspirators into the Sultan’s presence and informed him that Snag Si-Tuah had been flirting with a certain court-lady. Thus Hang Madim, Teja’s messenger, was executed. The news of his execution and of her father’s death reached Melaka and Tun Teja complained to her husband , saying that if she were a man, she would know how to act. Thereupon the Sultan ordered a force under Laksamana to subjugate Inderapura (Cf. 436-439).

Installment #6

Characterisation in Hikayat Hang Tuah

CHAPTER II

GENERAL CHARACTERISATION

The Major Characters (excepting Hang Jebat and Hang Tuah)

The Sultan of Melaka

In terms of historical perspective the Sultan is an impossible character. He is Sang Maniaka, the first son of the fabled Sang Purba, the King of Bukit Seguntang. He becomes the ruler of Bintan, emigrates with his whole court and subjects to found the kingdom of Melaka, lives practically throughout the whole book till the eve of the fall of Melaka and then disappears somewhat mysteriously.[i] However, as we have stated earlier, our interest is rather on the human plane than on the historical one.

Form the point of view of his position he is, of course, the most important figure I the book. But as a character he is of no great consequence. He comes out virtually flat and presents a blurred personality. Apparently he is the person most immersed in official matters as he is the head of state, but because of this he is also above the law. As such he should have shown evidence of freer expression of his personality.

He possesses many characteristics of a good leader. He is able, kind, generous and, to a large extent, just.[ii] He depends very much, of course, on his wise bendahara and also on the Laksamana but he does not seem to be dominated by either of them. H e is very sensitive about his authority and reacts quickly and violently to an attempt at insubordination.[iii] This is his weakest point and it neatly becomes the cause of his ruin.[iv]

He falls in love with Tun Teja after the fashion of those days. He has not seen Tun Teja himself; he only hears of widely acclaimed beauty.[v] But when he fails to get her and is told by Patih Karma Wijaya, a senior minister of his Javanese origin, that he would undertake to get for him a more beautiful princess in the person of the daughter of Seri Batara, he immediately forgets and orders plans to be made for the dispatch of a mission to Majapahit.[vi]

This weakness in his portraiture lies in his reactions to Patih Karma Wijaya’s accusations to Hang Tuah. It is conceivable that for the first time he should, without prior investigation, order the execution of his most trusted servant when thus accused. But when he repeats the same pattern of reaction at a second similar accusation brought up by the same man whom he knows has lied on that first instance, the whole matter looks incredible. At least he should have investigated the case first. Even granted that the matter touches the softest spot in his heart and that at such moments the possibility of his forgetting what has gone before is great, one thing he can still do. He can dismiss or disgrace the Patih for slander. This he does not do.[vii]

The main motivation of his character seems to be self-interest. His own brother, the Raja Muda, is sacrificed. Hang Tuah is, on many occasions, held out to death.[viii] Only towards the end of his reign when he has grown quite old does he appear to undergo some change. This change must have been brought about, in some degree, by the loss of his ancestral crown.[ix] The first manifestation of the new development is seen in his desire to know the life beyond the grave.[x] The effect of this dubious discovery on his attitude towards life is great. He decides to give up the world. Distributing his wealth among all his subjects, he abdicates and goes wandering in mystic style.

Bendahara Paduka Raja

The Bendahara is quite an interesting character, convincingly portrayed, although he does not appear as intense as Jebat or Tuah. He is a wise, brave and devoted minister., we; beloved by the Sultan and those below him. He becomes especially exciting when faced with crucial issues. There are three such occasions. On the first, the sultan orders him to execute the Raja Muda for alleged disloyalty.[xi] He refuses as he has pledged absolute loyalty to the royal descendent s of Bukit Seguntang.[xii] The other two occasions involve the fate of Hang Tuah. At both times he refuses to carry out the royal death sentence even though Tuah himself insists that he should d so.[xiii] He even makes passionate appeals for Tuah’s life on the second occasion.[xiv] These are difficult acts indeed to do; that he does them shows his strength and individuality of character.

His relationship with Patih Karma Wijaya and his attitude towards Jebat’s rebellious behaviour also afford interesting insight into his character. He distrusts the Patih even before the latter shows his untrustworthy nature.[xv] He never expresses it to the Sultan and he is very diplomatic on this point.[xvi]

Although quite forthright in his advice to the Sultan, he is very loyal servant. He does not agree with Jebat’s actions. It would seem that he does not realize Jebat’s real motive for rebellion.[xvii] Even f he does, it is doubtful whether he would appreciate it. He thinks the Sultan is wrong, of course, for not having decreed rashly against Hang Tuah, but it does not enter his head to rebel against his authority. The idea is simply incredible. Logical though his mind is, it still operates within the feudal scheme.

Next: Installment #7: Patih Gajah Mada

---

[i] At first (p.305) it is told inhte middle of his wanderings as a darwish, he simply disappeared “never to be heard again.” The (p.308) it is said that he had retired to a life of hermitage on Mt. Jugara together with the bendahara, Temenggong and Laksama.

[ii] Throughout the whole book there are only three occasions when he acted unjustly (see footnote 1 p.21).

[iii] No sooner had he installed his younger brother as Raja Muda, than the jealous officials begin to frame a case of treason against the latter. When the Sultanheard of it he flew into a rage and immediately ordered his execution (Cf. p. 74). The same pattern of reaction is repeated twice when Tuah was alleged to have encroached upon the royal prerogatives by entering into illicit relations with his ‘gundik’ (cf. pp. 179 & 303-304).

[iv] We refer to the “menderhaka” episode of Jebat which came about as a result of his inability to bring sober judgment to bear on a case of alleged disloyalty.

[v] Various princes had sought her hand, but failed. Her beauty is described thus: “Maka rupu-nya terlalu elok, saperti bulan purnama, empat belas haribulan kilau-kilauan, tiada dapat di-tentang nyata.” (p. 97).

[vi] Cf. p.101.

[vii] He did indeed chide the Patih and his accomplices when their doings had led Jebat to rebel against his authority. He even threatened them with death if they could not remove Jebat (Cf. p. 320) but it seems that the threat was not carried out.

[viii] Apart from the duels and fights Hang Tuah has to undertake on his account, there are the “Coconut-climbing” incident (p. 340), the “horse-riding” incident (pp. 243-4), the “horse-saving” incident (p. 245), the “getting-into-the-garve” incident (pp. 500-2).

[ix] The crown fell intothe sea when he was traveling on a pleasure trip to Singapura. The loss seems to have affected his health. Since then, he is said to be constantly “gila-gila saki keala dan tuboh-nya demam” (p. 447). This loss seems also to be symbolically linked into the fate of Melaka because it was from this point onwards that Melaka began to decline.

[x] Cf. pp. 500-2.

[xi] He was accused by some jealous courtiers of planning to overthrow the Sultan.

[xii] Cf. p. 74. See also p. 67.

[xiii] Cf. pp 179 & 305.

[xiv] Cf. pp. 304 & 305.

[xv] Cf. p. 124.

[xvi] When the Sultan was preparing to visit Majapahit the second time, the question of who was to accompany him came up. The Temenggung suggested that the senior officers should also go because the Laksamana was young and inexperienced man. This would include Patih Karma Wijaya. The Bendahara retorted by asking who the officers were besides the Laksamana. At this juncture the Patih offered himself. The answer the Bendahara here gave is characteristic of his diplomacy (Cf. p.273).

[xvii] He said that Jebat acted thus because Tuah was no longer alive (p. 310). This would imply that Jebat was a coward.

Installment #5

Characterisation in Hikayat Hang Tuah

CHAPTER II

GENERAL CHARACTERISATION

The Minor Characters

The minor characters are those whose role in the story are not vital. There are many of them. It is pointless to treat them all because they can be considered under a few broad types. There is the ruler-type which may be represented by Seri Batara or the Raja Muda of Melaka. There is the prince-type like Megat Panji Alam. Tun Bijaya Sura can be taken to stand for the court-official type; Petala Bumi for the warrior-ascetic type. Then there are the ladies-in-waiting (dayang) characterized by Dang Ratna, better known as Mak Inang. There is the simpleton Pak Si Molong who is both pathetic and comic at the same time. And there is the little spirited loyalist son of Hang Tuah, Tun Kadim.

None of them emerge as convincingly as Hang Tuah or Hang Jebat. They are not altogether flat characters, although among them Seri Batara and Tun Bijaya Sura come nearest to being so. These also are personalities most involved in officialdom. Seri Batara is a little confusingly drawn.[i] He is stupid,[ii] succumbs to flattery[iii] and spends his time agreeing to whatever suggestions his powerful Prime Minister, Patih Gajah Mada, makes. He does no t surprise the reader; rather he bores.[iv] Tun Bijaya Sura is the orthodox, respectable court official who goes about unnoticed doing the bidding of his master.[v]

The most interesting character in this category is Dang Ratna, better known as Mak Inang. She is Tun Teja’s chief lady-in-waiting. She appears only on a few pages, but she is entirely free from the trappings of officialdom. Her character comes out very well both as an individual and as a typical Malay woman. She displays the talkativeness and soft heartedness[vi] of women in general and possesses the politeness[vii] and modesty[viii] characteristic of Malays.

She was quite taken in by Hang Tuah’s good manners and humility, adopted him as her own son and soon grew very fond of him. When, therefore, Tuah asked her to convey his love to Tun Teja, she faced the crisis of her life. To comply was to court disaster; but to refuse was to disappoint someone whom, as she herself said, she would even venture into “a sea of fire”.[ix] Out of sheer love for Hang Tuah she had to comply and the description of her indecision, confusion and fear while trying to accomplish this hazardous undertaking is very realistic and superbly done.[x]

The warrior-ascetic characters[xi] also come out well. Their non-involvement in officialdom explains this fact. But because all of them follow generally the same pattern, their portraiture becomes a little blurred. Their characteristic trait is haughtiness.[xii] However, Petala Bumi, whom we have chosen to characterise this type shows something more. He is not only boastful, but also a bully.[xiii] Nevertheless, he is honest enough to admit that Tuah is a much better warrior than he is. He knows that he cannot cause any harm to him; rather, he would be destroyed at his hands. Still, he has the integrity and courage to go and fight the man because he has given his word to Seri Betara.[xiv]

Megat Panji Alam , the son of Terenggano Raja, is princely type of character. Only one side of him comes up and no doubt it is the dominant side of this social type: extreme haughtiness and arrogance.[xv] Because of this he loses the reader’s sympathy even the cause for which he goes to fight the Sultan of Melaka and his Laksamana is valid and reasonable.[xvi] Being the son of a king, he naturally leads a protected and pampered life. Whatever he asks for would not be objected by his royal father. This makes him arrogant and boastful. There is no wonder he meets his end with not much of a fight[xvii] to match his early boasts.

A character that draws pity from the reader is Pak Si Molong, the fighting-cock trainer (juara ayam) of the Terenggano Raja. He is the simple and straightforward common-man type. He possesses the characteristic resignation of the Malay peasant. In his simplicity and straightforwardness he suffers[xviii] but his suffering does not embitter him:[xix] it causes him to resign to his fate. It is this situation in which he gets caught, and to which he is sacrificed, that makes him to a tragic and lovable character.

Another minor character that ought to be mentioned is Tun Kadim, the son of Hang Tuah. He seems typical of a child brought up in the heroine tradition. At about nine years or so[xx] he is already well acquainted with court manners and etiquette. He also has acquired that feudal mentality and sense of heroism[xxi] that is so much the mark of his father. As such he serves to show and explain in the deeper terms of social environment the dominant heroic traits of the age.

Next: Installment #6: The Major Characters (excepting Hang Tuah and Hang Tuah)

---

[i] Sometimes he appears to be in complete agreement with the aggressive policy of Gajah Muda; sometimes he appears to be just a puppet; yet at other times he is quite capable of acting on his own.

[ii] The two incidents when Hang Tuah’s keris was stolen illustrates this quality (Cf. pp. 156 & 255, and also footnote 3, p. 26). Furthermore , in most quarters his thinking is done for him by Patih Gajah Mada.

[iii] Tuah knows this weakness and often exploits it. Once he was so pleased because Hang Tuah said he was the descendent of a great king sent down by Allah to rule Majapahit that he ordered the Patih to make his presents of gold, clots, keris, buffaloes and rice (Cf. p114).

[iv] His tenacious persistence in conspiring with the Patih against Hang Tuah has the effect of flattening his character.

[v] At one point he shows some signs of character. He was reporting to the Sultan on his unsuccessful mission to Inderapura to get the hand of Tun Teja. Hang Tuah, who felt that the refusal of the royal offer of marriage was mud thrown at his master’s face, made a deadly remark (p. 101). Bijaya Sura felt slighted. Later when he was passing through Inderapura on his return voyage from Siam, he refused to take Tuah with him on learning that the latter was bringing along Tun Teja (p. 212). However he acquiesced whenthreaned. He does not seem to have takenpart in the subsequent plot against Tuah.

[vi] 1. 181.

[vii] P. 181.

[viii] P. 189

[ix] “….jikalau tuan suroh ka-laut apa sa-kali pun bonda pergi….” (p. 197).

[x] Cf. pp. 198-200.

[xi] Examples are Petala Bumi, Tamang Sari, Sang Wirana Semantara, Merga Pakai, kerlala Sari, Sang Tangso, Sehirang.

[xii] Cf. pp 155, 159, 254, 258,. Incidentally, the boasting of warriors is another characteristic of heroic poetry or saga (Cf. Chadwick, H. A., p. 326).

[xiii] He threatened to knife Barit Ketika should the later refuse to accompany him into Hang Tuah’s compound (Cf. p. 288).

[xiv] Cf. pp. 289, 291.

[xv] Cf. pp 223, 230, 234.

[xvi] The Sultan of Melaka, through Laksamana, had taken away and carried Tun Teja who was then his fiancée.

[xvii] Cf. p.235.

[xviii] With the consent of his master, he exchanged cocks with their opponent because he was impressed by the looks of the latter’s bird. However, his eyes had deceived him and the Terenggano’s cock lost to Raja Jolan. For this the master ordered his eyes to be taken out (Cf. p. 422).

[xix] When his master asked him to look for a new fighting cock that could match that of his opponent and promised him four concubines if he could find one, he undertook to do so but he said that ‘gundiks’ would be useless to him as he would not be able to see them (Cf. p. 423).

[xx] At this time he is said to be a little smarter than his father when he entered the royal service (p. 320), that is, when he was at the age of ten (p. 24).

[xxi] Already at this young age he was asking to be allowed to fight the ‘traitor’ Jebat (Cf. p. 322).

Installment #4
Characterisation in Hikayat Hang Tuah


CHAPTER II

GENERAL CHARACTERISATION


Introduction

IT IS inaccurate to refer, in the modern sense, to methods of characterisation in Hikayat Hang Tuah. Its ‘composer’ did not approach his task as modern novelists do. Nevertheless, it would be absurd to deny that in this work certain patterns do emerge – patterns that may, without offence, be termed methods of chracterisation.

Modern novelists resort to various techniques in order to bring out their characters. They give overt descriptions: of a person’s appearance (physique, clothes, manners and mannerism) and of the other traits of his character. They make him speak, act, think, and feel in a certain way. They also throw light on a character’s appearance by making the other characters refer to it. Likewise they throw light on his motives, capabilities and may other things about him: be revealing the attitudes of other characters towards him and their opinions of him.

In this hikayat it will be seen that overt descriptions of personal appearance[i] and overt analysis of character[ii] are very rare, if not entirely absent. The dominant device is dialogue. A character expresses himself mainly in speech.[iii] Action too is important mode of character portrayal.[iv] Sometimes the thoughts and feelings of a character are directly laid bare to the reader; frequent references by one character to another also occur.

The degree of distinctiveness a character achieves depends very much on the role he plays in the story. Although the number of named personnel in this epic runs to more than 100, very few can be considered major characters. The story is essentially the story of Hang Tuah and he is obviously the most important character. After him comes the somewhat enigmatic Hang Jebat. Both of them are depicted quite clearly. Then there are a few not too vivid personalities – Tun Teja, the Sultan of Melaka, Bendahara Paduka Raja, Patih Karma Wijaya, Patih Gajah Mada -- whose roles are quite important, but who do not come out so distinctly. The rest of the characters are generally more types without any individuality.

There appears to be a persistent line running through the whole character delineation. Persons most involved in the officialdom of the state come out the least clearly. They are flat and dull. On the other hand, those who are less involved in it come out much more strikingly. They are more human and interesting. Let us take an example, The Sultan of Melaka appears much more often in the story than Hang Jebat, yet there is no doubt that the latter comes out more realistically and convincingly that he. The same applies with Tun Teja. She occupies a very small space; compared to that filled by the Bendahara Paduaka Raja, hers is negligible. Nevertheless, the reader feels more about her than he does about him.

From this trend in characterisation it would seem that we could formulate an axiom, thus: that the degree of realism achieved by a character depends on the degree of his involvement in officialdom – the less involvement, the more real the character.

What is the explanation for this pattern of characterization? However one may account for it, one thing seems clear. This is essentially a human story. It is interested in depicting human powers and limitations. A character caught in the trappings of official affairs has to be sober and restrained in his manners and movements. He has to be correct and formal. This at once robs him of his humanity. The more officially involved a character is, the less real he becomes.

Next: Installment #5: The Minor Characters

Endnotes:

[i] There is no attempt to individualise character through description of personal appearance. Such overt descriptions occur only when the ‘author’ gives a general impression of the physical looks of the character. This is done through the use of conventional phrases like “terlalu elok rupa-nya” (p.11), “muka-nya saperti bulan pernama empat belas hari bulan” (p.11) and such similar formulae. Even the appearance of the two most important characters are, to all intents and purposes, not described. As far as Hang Jebat goes, there is only one sentence that comes nearest to this category of characterization. In a conversation a character remarks “….tuboh-nya (Jebat) puteh rambut-nya ikal….” (p.24). As for Hang Tuah, at pone place when he is about to set out for the great duel with Hang Jebat, the ‘writer’ describes the items of clothing as he puts them on (p.331).

This tendency to omit descriptions of physical attributes and characterisation seem to reflect two things: first, a mechanical difficulty and second, as social convention. An elaborate description of this nature tends to bore an audience and causes them to lose the trend of the story. A modern reader can skip the descriptive parts of a novel if he likes; in any case he can turn back the page to recapitulate what he has read. This cannot be done with a recited narrative. It was thus to meet this demand of a listening public that as little as possible of this kind of description was given. Second, it would appear that no great value was placed on physical appearance. A hero had to be handsome and well-built, of course, but, generally, people were not interested to know what he looked like.

[ii] Overt analysis of character is avoided like the plague. Character traits are brought out by the character himself mostly through his speeches, through actions and thoughts and through reports and opinions of other characters. Western writers have, of course, long recognised the effectiveness of this procedure and have consciously pursued it. It is, however, a little strange and discouraging to have to note that modern Malay writers have yet to achieve this objectively and realism in character portrayal when actually one of the earlier works in their tongue has done so. For if there is any work that is substantially free from didactism in Malay literature, it is Hikayat Hang Tuah. Absence of didactic tendencies is the an characteristic of a heroic story. Its only purpose is to entertain (Cf. Chadwick, Growth, p. 20) and Brown (, pp. 29-31). Such is Hikayat Hang Tuah. It was conceived in, and it tells about, a time of national confidence. There was no urgent message to put across – hence its objectivity.

[iii] Speeches occupy the greater portion of this book. There is a tendency to make more than one character speak collectively. More often this applies to the minor character speak collectively. More often this applies to the minor characters alone (Cf. pp.34, 100, 211, 212, 217), but sometimes major characters are also involved (Cf. pp. 35, 54, 123-124). Also it often happens that a character repeats the same speech, when in different situations (Cf. Megat Panji Alam’s speeches on pp. 221,22 & 225).

[iv] This is especially so with reference to Hang Jebat. His “menderhaka” episode is so dramatic that it is very difficult too discover his exact motive unless every action of his is carefully scrutinized. Moreover, before this catastrophe he has been moving in relatively quiet way and when Hang Tuah is gone he gives no clear verbal evidence of what he intends doing or what he is doing until his rebellious actions can no longer be mistaken (Cf. pp 304-17).

Installment #3
Characterisation in Hikayat Hang Tuah


CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION (Cont’d)


The difficulty in dealing with this subject is the choice of point of view. There appears to be two methods that immediately present themselves to us as possible alternatives. The characters could be approached either from the modern standpoint, or from the standpoint of the audience of that time. The first method would be comparatively easy but it would not be fair or make sense. It is not possible to apply our modern standards to characters which are the products of a different scale of values. Our conceptions of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, of the ideal human character, of heroism and of such other basic matters are different from those held by the society of Hikayat Hang Tuah. Their values are the integral components of their culture. Hang Tuah was, to his fellowmen, a hero because he fulfilled their ideal of manhood.[i] On the other hand, Hang Jebat was a traitor precisely because he violated this ideal. But the modern reader who judges from the subjective standard of his culture will find both of them unintelligible. Hang Tuah would appear as an intolerable defender of the feudal principle, Hang Jebat as indeed a poor rebel. Obviously this view is inadequate; these characters did not act, and could not have acted, along our pattern of behaviour.

Alternatively, we can view the characters from the standpoint of the audience for whom the story was meant. Nothing could be fairer for them. Both the characters and the audience are creatures of the same cultural background and there would probably be nothing for us to criticize. We would have to uphold Hang Tuah as the undisputed hero and condemn Hang Jebat as the irredeemiable traitor. But the result would be not a critical study but an appreciation.

It is quite clear that these approaches are subjective. Is there, then, any other approach that could make a rationally consistent case for itself? In other words, is there an objective standard? It would be unhistorical to deny that such feudal concepts as the absolute sovereignty of the ruler and therefore the absolute loyalty of his subjects to him, the belief in the power of magic and asceticism operated in the society projected in Hikayat Hang Tuah. They did exist and determined social behaviour. To argue outside them, that is, outside this feudal-cultural framework, is to argue against the objective existence of Malay classical literature itself. Nevertheless we cannot take a fatalistic view of human nature. Human actions are not wholly predetermined. It is thus possible that the characters in the story might have fallen short of the possibilities offered to them by the flexibility of their culture. Conversely, they might have overstepped its probable limits. It is precisely in this plane of dialectic – the unity between what is humanly possible and what is socially determined – that we shall examine our characters.

This method would demand a fairly accurate knowledge of the social foundations on which the existence of the characters rested. The question is asked: how far do the characters convincingly depict the peaks and limits of human endeavour offered by such social foundations?

The technical difficulty with this method of approach is, however, not unique. A prerequisite knowledge of the social conditions in which the characters of Hikayat Hang Tuah were bred and born is essential even for the second subjective method. To obtain such knowledge we are almost forced to fall back upon the book itself. There are no historical sources. There are of course contemporary writings and Sejarah Melayu is the best of them. It is our opinion that enough information could be gleaned even from these two books alone.

We will try to reconstruct a bare outline here. The society mirrored in Hikayat Hang Tuah is substantially pre-Islamic in character. It is essentially a feudal-agricultural structure based on a servant-master relationship. The head of state is the Sultan to whom all pay homage and render absolute loyalty.[ii] Below him is the hierarchy of officials who help him to discharge various affairs of state. It seems that these officials have under their charge certain territories or kampongs. The residents of each kampong are known as ‘anak buah’ of the official-in-charge and they serve under him.[iii]

Physical courage is a cardinal virtue besides loyalty. It is admired and respected. Even persons of humble beginnings can attain fame and royal favour through sheer physical prowess. Hang Tuah and his four comrades are a case in point. However, physical prowess is always associated with, and acquired through, ascetic learning and practices. Belief in the power of asceticism and also of magic is a force in society. Bound up with this belief is the concept of invulnerability (kebal).[iv]

Morality is not a strong point. Instances of adultery (bermukah) occur without seeming to attract much social approval.[v] It would seem that a man may have affairs with women of several categories: maidens, wives of other men, royal singers or even ladies-in-waiting; the exceptions are the royal concubines (gundik) or the fiancés of other men.[vi] However, the hero would do better not to indulge in these frivolous activities.[vii]

Marriage seems to be monogamous for a large section of the people. The ruler, however, can marry as many as he likes[viii] and keeps concubines even before he is married.[ix]

The greatest crime is disobedience (durhaka) to the ruler ad it is punishable by death. At the extreme this takes the form of revolt against his authority.[x] Acting against his orders is also disobedience.[xi] Another for of ‘durhaka’ is to have an affair with his ‘gundik’.[xii]

Life is not as valuable as honour. Where honour is concerned, it is better to die than to lose it (biar puteh tulang jangan puteh mata). Even justice is sacrificed at times in order to defend honour.[xiii] In the social scheme of Majapahit there would appear to be less respect for life.[xiv]

Such, then, is roughly the social picture projected in this hikayat. It is important to grasp these underlying concepts before a real analysis of its characters can be made.

Next: Installment #4 Chapter II: General Considerations

[i] 1. The ideal was absolute loyalty to one’s master, that is, the Sultan (mempertarohkan nyawa ka-bawah duli).

[ii] When Islam came his position was somewhat rationalised since the conception of absolute authority vested in man contradicts the cardinal principle of Islam. He then became the shadow of God on earth (al-Khalifata zillul-Lahi ala-ardi – Raja itu akan ganti Allah taala di-dalam dunia ini – H.H.T., p.246).

[iii] A clear example of the relationship of ‘anak buah’ to their master is afforded in the instance when Sultan Mahmud ordered the execution Bendahara Seri Maharaja (Cf. Sejarah Melayu , p.285).

[iv] Hang Tuah is said to have achieved this state; hence he could not be killed by weapons. This concept is still operative in Malay society to-day. At the beginning of the B.M.A. [British Malaya Administration] period several ‘invulnerable groups’ sprang up to lead the Malay fight against Chinese terrorist gangs. Panglima Salleh of Batu Pahat, who is still living, was a leader of one of this groups.

[v] Cf. H.H.T., p.200

[vi] op. cit. p. 197

[vii] Hang Tuah was a married man and at no time indulged in illicit relations.

[viii] Ibid., p. 246.

[ix] Ibid., p. 124.

[x] Only once did this happen in the story, that is in the famous allegedly treasonous act of Hang Tuah.

[xi] The Bendahara twice acted against his orders by not putting to death Hang Tuah. But it seems that the Raja forgave him.

[xii] On both occasions when he pronounced the death decree on Hang Tuah it was because the latter was accused of having illicit relations with his ‘gundik’.

[xiii] Hang Tuah killed Megat Panji Alam because the latter threatened to take revenge on the Sultan of Malacca even though he and his master were in the wrong for having robbed the Megat of his betrothed.

[xiv] There are frequent instances of the common people unjustly killed by the numerous warrior-ascetics in the employ of the ambitious Patih Gajah Mada.

Installment #2
Characterisation in Hikayat Hang Tuah


CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION



THE PURPOSE of this study is to examine critically the portrayal of character in Hikayat Hang Tuah. The number of persons mentioned by name in this Malay or Malaysian epic[1] runs to something like 130. But not all of them are characters and only a few will be dealt with in this study. The nature of the story is such that our task is, in effect reduced to that of considering the over-all pattern of its characterisation and, particularly, the individual persons of Hang Tuah and Hang Jebat.

Some doubts might be expressed over the plausibility of this undertaking. A critical question can be asked: is there any characterization at all in this story, for that matter, in any of the Malay classical works? To a great extent these doubts are valid. Malay classical compositions, on the whole, do not display much interest in character.[2] But Hikayat Hang Tuah happens to belong to a specific category of old literature which, in relative terms, concerns itself with individuals to a marked degree. Among the old works it alone seems to possess this distinctive feature of characterisation. However, Hikayat Seri Rama, although it does no belong strictly to the heroic type,[3] also shows as much, if not more, evidence of character portrayal. The reason we have not chosen this work for our study is simply that it is not essentially a Malay-Indonesian composition. Grounded as it is on Hindu mythology and Hindu conception of life, it therefore does not portray Malay characters.

Hikayat Hang Tuah has, until now, been neglected by scholars of Malay classical literature. It occupies an obscure and undeservedly low place in the literary hierarchy. Scholars have generally tended to focus their attention on Sejarah Melayu.[4] We do not seek to underestimate or diminish the importance of this fine work, but it is our opinion that Hikayat Hang Tuah deserves, in many respects, better attention than has been accorded it.

Among the Malays it has been the most popular story. In the days of the ‘bangsawan’ it became the frequent theme of the stage play and always attracted a large audience. The fact in 1956 Shaw Brothers made it into a film shows that the story has not lost its appeal. Modern versions of the story have also been written. In 1950 Abdul Ahmad Samad brought out his Dosaku![5] And in 1954 Laksamana Tun Tuah [6] appeared. It has also, of course, become the theme of many children’s comics and school plays.

In short, then, Hikayat Hang Tuah is, or rather has been, to the Malays, a national epic just as the Iliad and the Odyssey had been to the Greeks of old. In it is expressed the heroism and aspirations of the race from the dawn of its history. It is difficult to imagine a Malay who has not heard of Hang Tuah or Hang Jebat. For the simple kampong folks these two heroic characters are still respectively the embodiments of heroism and treason. Hang Tuah was the hero and represented the highest peak of Malaysian endeavour in the Heroic Age [7] of their history. Hang Jebat was the traitor as he violated their ideal of human service. However, to-day both these characters are no longer unanimously held in those lights. A critical attitude towards the time-honoured “heroism” of Hang Tuah is developing and Hang Jebat is beginning to appear in better colours. [8] It is part of our plan, therefore, to re-examine these two controversial figures of easily the most important work , from the standpoints of literary composition and social history, in Malay classical literature and, thereby, to evaluate them afresh.

It would be misleading, of course, to speak of characterization in this classical work in modern terms. In modern western literature or in any literature that has been fully developed the novel form [9] characterisation has become a matter of elaborate technical organization. A great deal of writing has been done on the problems and methods of of bringing out live characters. Under these conditions modern writers work. Consciously they learn these techniques and consciously they apply them or develop new ones in their writings. As such, characterisation becomes a refined, if not somewhat sophisticated, art. But the ‘author’ [10] of Hikayat Hang Tuah worked under no such conditions. He was not aware of characterisation as a component part of a good story. He was not aware of any technique for bringing out characters. What he knew was that he must tell a good story – interesting enough to hold his literary unsophisticated audience. This does not, however, mean that there would be no character portrayal in his work. In so far as his commitment was to tell a good story, he was bound, by the mere fact of being an artist, to bring out human characters. How he does it is a different matter and cannot be judged by our modern standards. While modern novelists write their stories for a reading public, the bard of Hikayat Hang Tuah recited his narrative to an audience. Their methods must therefore differ.

Still we can judge his characterisation. We are asking what he has produced out or a certain specific situation, and not so much as how. We want to know whether his men and women are convincing, whether they lead independent lives and how far they are types and how far individuals. And over and above these, we want to know whether his characters truthfully portray the times they live in.

We are therefore concerned with the human aspect of the story. From the historical point of view the narrative is, of course, preposterous. Fifteenth century Malacca is rendered contemporaneously with fourteenth century Majapahit. Hang Tuah, the Sultan and Bendahara Paduka Raja are among the major characters who live throughout the whole story from the time of the founding of Malacca till its downfall. These are weaknesses, certainly, but they do not, in any substantial way, affect the human ingredient in this grand epic. Events historically arranged do not necessarily present an artistic picture. An artist has to integrate his world so as to bring a pattern and meaning to it. It is in the nature of an epic to construct a vast and splendid canvas. And the ‘author’ of Hikayat Hang Tuah has integrated the highest period of Javanese classical history to that of Malacca, thereby presenting a unified and artistic picture of the Malaysian Heroic Age. It does not matter whether or not the Hang Tuah of fifteenth century Malacca could also figure in Java of the fourteenth century. The important thing is that these two historically different periods are, culturally, essentially similar. They represent the highest peaks in the Malaysian medieval eras. It is therefore intelligible that Hang Tuah, the highest concretized conception of a Malay feudal hero, should find his opponents among the best Javanese produced in their best of their history.

Endnotes:

1. It seems to us that this hikayat belongs in the category of epic narrative. (Incidentally Dr. C. Hooykhas has made the interesting suggestion that is comparable to the Iliad or the Odyssey–cf. footnote 2, p2). It is a story of courage and endurance, of exploits, and adventures. It shares a number of characteristics in common with what is known as heroic poetry or saga; for example its princely personnel, its aristocratic milieu, its cardinal virtues of courage and absolute personal loyalty. (Cf. Chadwick, Growth, Ch. IV).

2. Almost the entire body of Malay literature before Abdullah Munshi may be divided into ‘heroic’ or ‘non-heroic’ types. The latter, which makes up the greater part of the literature, is didactic in strain and concerns itself little with character. But the former always has a hero and devotes itself to telling, in an objective and entertaining way, his exploits. It is this type which presents features of characterisation. Hikayat HangTuah is a specimen of this type.

3. Brown, p.v.

4. Two translations of Sejarah Melayu have been made into English: by Leyden and by C. C. Brown. Brown describes it as “the finest literary work in Malay” (CL Sejarah Melayu, JMBRAS, p. 7). Winstedt says that it is “the most famous, distinctive and best of all Malay literary works”. (Cf. Winstedt, p. 105). On the other hand, there is no translation of Hikayat Hang Tuah in English. Winstedt in the same book remarks that “it is notable as the only original romance in Malay literature….” (p.44). H. N. van der Tuuk, however, has better words for it. He says: “this composition is very interesting, as it exhibits a faithful picture of Malay life, and is written in genuine Malay”. (Cf. Tuuk, p.1). And Dr. C. Hooykaas has dropped an interesting suggesting. He calls this work as a Malay legendary novel comparable to the Iliad or, particularly, the Odyssey (Cf. Hookyass, p. 80). This is the view we, in fact, subscribe to.


5. Dosaku. (Kuala Lumpur, 1950) is not actually a story about Hang Tuah, but Hang Tuah’s death is impressively related.

6. Laksamana Tun Tuah, Kuala Lumpur, 1954.

7. What is termed the Heroic Age is represented rather by its sociocultural characteristics than mere chronology. It is less a historical epoch than an artistic scheme. (Cf. Brown, p.26).

8. The first note of skepticism as to Hang Tuah’s rightful title to honour as a hero has been struck in the film just mentioned. Early in 1953 Mohd. Ali Aziz, an undergraduate of this university, brought out a lengthy radio play entitled Terajadi Hang Jebat in which he sets to show Jebat as a tragic hero.

9. Self-conscious probing of the human character comes with the novel.

10. There seems to be no doubt that Hikayat Hang Tuah originated as an oral composition. Most probably there existed several reciters who must have taken the liberty to improvise as they told the story over and over again. As Winstedt suggests, there appears to be more than one compiler as the early style changes towards the end (cf. Winstedt, p. 45). However, it is our view that the story as a whole has preserved its unity of literary conception.

Installment #1

Characterisation in Hikayat Hang Tuah

[Personal note: I have maintained the same style, spelling, and punctuation as in the original thesis published by Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka in 1965. However, because of the change in pagination, I convert the footnotes to endnotes (with the consequent changes in numbering) placed at the end of each installment. In another minor editorial change, I put the table of contents at the beginning instead of after the Foreword and Preface as in the original. Each posting will about one to two thousand words, a portion that is readily readable at one sitting. The original thesis was 60 pages long and I hope to have the entire manuscript posted in about a month.
M. Bakri Musa]

*.*.*.*.*
CHARACTERISATION IN HIKAYAT HANG TUAH

(A General Survey of Methods of Character Portrayal and Analysis and Interpretation of the Characters of Hang Tuah and Hang Jebat)



An Academic Exercise in Fulfillment of the Requirements For the B.A. (Honours) Degree In Malay Studies.
University of Malaya, Singapore, 1959

By

KASSIM BIN AHMAD

DEWAN PUSTAKA DAN PUSTAKA
KEMENTERIAN PELAJARAN MALAYSIA
KUALA LUMPUR
1966

* * * * * *


CONTENTS

Page
Foreword vii
Preface ix

CHAPTER

I Introduction 1
II General Characterisation 9
III Hang Jebat 25
IV Hang Jebat 34
V Conclusion 47

APPPENDIX

I An Abstract of Exercise (in Malay) 51
II A Synopsis of Hikayat Hang Tuah 53
List of References and Abbreviations 59
Index 60
* * * * *


FOREWORD

THIS book, “Characterisation In Hikayat Hang Tuah” is one of the academic exercises done by our graduates in fulfillment of the requirements for the B.A. (Honours) degree in Malay Studies which has been chosen by Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka to be published.

The Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka does not consider itself bound to agree or disagree with the opinion expressed by the author in respect of problems discussed in this book.

The publication of this book has increased the number of academic works in the field of Malay language and literature, and it is hoped that it will be of great benefit to students in secondary schools, undergraduates, and to those who are interested in the study of language and literature.

The Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka will continue to publish works of this kind from time to time.


Syed Nasir bin Ismail
Pengarah
Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka
Kuala Lumpur
Ogoz, 1965

* * * * *


PREFACE

THE IDEA to turn some aspects of Hikayat Hang Tuah into the subject for my Academic Exercise came into my mind while I was temporarily working in Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka during the last long vacation. I was then comparing the newly-found MS of Hikayat Hang Tuah from Kelantan with the two printed editions of Shellabear and Balai Pustaka. While reading it again after some eight years of preoccupation with English primers, English history books and English novels, it struck me that this Malaysian story is an extremely interesting composition. Of course, when I first read it during my days at the Malay school, I was very much excited by it too, but that was a schoolboy’s excitement and no more.

I then broached the idea to Mr. J.C. Bottoms, who was subsequently to be my supervisor. He showed great interest, approved of it and immediately set me to work on the “Characterisation in Hikayat Hang Tuah”.

It was thus that I came to write this Exercise. For me, to read again this remarkable story has been an exhilarating experience. And the attempt to write something about it has – let me say so – given me no less pleasure.

I have based my studies solely on the Balai Pustaka edition (1956). This edition was first brought out in 1924. There is another printed edition (in both jawi and rumi scripts) of this hikayat that is, the one made by W. G. Shellabear in 1903. Dewan Bahasa & Pustaka has also discovered a new MS recently from Kelantan. The Shellabear edition and the Dewan Bahasa MS are also available for my purpose, but I have not actually used them. Not only is it impossible for me to do so owing to the limitations of time and scope, but also it would not be worthwhile. As I mentioned earlier, I have had occasion to read and compare these three manuscripts and I have found that they do not substantially differ from one another.[i] For this reason I have confined myself to the Balai Pustaka edition as I think it is the best edition so far.

A minor technical problem arises here: that is, the problem of rendering place-names. To avoid confusion, I have refrained from using the modern spelling. I have adhered, as far as possible, to the original indigenous spelling, as found in the edition. I have, of course, adapted the Indonesian spelling to our own system.

I wish to record here my gratitude and appreciation to Mr. J. C. Bottoms, Assistant Lecturer in the Department of Malay Studies, who painstakingly supervised my work and who gave me a good deal of encouragement while I was writing it. I would also like to thank Mr. C. Skinner, Lecturer in the Department of Malay Studies who was also now acting as Head of that Department, for some valuable suggestions and criticisms.

My thanks are also due to the Director of Dewan Bahasa & Pustaka, Tuan Syed Nasir bin Ismail, who as kindly lent me the Kelantan MS and the complete four-volume edition of Shellabear, although I have not actively used them.

Kassim Ahmad
Singapore,
Januari, 31, 1959.

[i] Cf. article in Dewan Bahasa (Oct. 1958): “Chatatan Tentang Beberapa Naskhah Hikayat Hang Tuah”.