¹ One may see this tendency, for instance, in Krom, N. J., Hindoe-Javaansche geschiedenis, second ed., 's-Gravenhage, 1931Google Scholar, which ends with a final chapter on the ‘Decline and fall of the Hindu-Javanese authority’. The last page of the text ends: ‘For Java, the flight [of Hindu-Javanese dignitaries to Bali], if it took place on a fairly large scale, undoubtedly meant an impoverishment in cultural matters, for after all it was precisely the traditional proponents of Javanese culture who were most likely to flee. All of this, however, lies outside the scope of this book. At the moment when the leadership of Java is no longer in Hindu-Javanese hands, but rather taken over by Islamic rulers, Hindu-Javanese history ends’(p. 467).

All history books must begin and end somewhere, and Krom cannot be criticized for choosing the decline of Madjapahit as a logical place to stop. But his book does tend to reinforce the impression that the fall of Madjapahit was a major cultural watershed in Javanese history.

² de Casparis, J. G., ‘Historical writing on Indonesia (early period)’, in Hall, D. G. E. (ed.), Historians of South East Asia, London, 1963, 124Google Scholar.

³ Berg, C. C., ‘The work of Professor Krom’, in Hall, , Historians, 169Google Scholar; and ‘The Islamisation of Java’, Studia Islamica, IV, 1955, 119–22Google Scholar.

⁴ It is impossible here to give an adequate idea of Dr. de Graaf's contribution to modern Javanese history. He broke new ground with his Ph.D. thesis, De moord op Kapitein François Tack, 8 Febr. 1686, Amsterdam, 1935Google Scholar, and recently has contributed a series of publications on the Javanese rulers of the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: De regering van Panembahan Sénapati Ingalaga, 's-Gravenhage, 1954Google Scholar; De regering van Sultan Agung,… 1613–1645, en die van zijn voorganger Panembahan Seda-ing-Krapjak, 1601–1613, 's-Gravenhage, 1958Google Scholar; De regering van Sunan Mangku-Rat I,… 1646–1677, 2 vols., 's-Gravenhage, 1961–1962Google Scholar. The most reliable general history of Indonesia is still his Geschiedenis van Indonesië, 's-Gravenhage and Bandung, 1949. He is at present completing a new monograph including notes by Dr. T. G. T. Pigeaud, which will treat the events surrounding the fall of Madjapahit in the context of a full study of the early Islamic states of Java; this new monograph is to be entitled ‘De eerste Moslimse vorstendommen op Java: studiën over de staatkundige geschiedenis van de 15de en 16de eeuw’.

⁵ Meinsma, J. J. (ed.), Sérat Babad tanah Djawi, wiwit sangking Nabi Adam dumugi ing taun 1647, 's-Gravenhage, 1874Google Scholar. In Javanese script.

⁶ For a brief biography of Meinsma, see Bezemer, T. J. (ed.), Beknopte encyclopaedie van Nederlandsch-Indie, 's-Gravenhage and Leiden, 1921, 312Google Scholar.

⁷ See Gonda, J., ‘Eenige grepen uit de geschiedenis der beoefening van de Maleische taal-en letterkunde’, Verslag Prov. utrechtsch Gen. van Kunsten en Wetenschappen, 1935, 103–8Google Scholar; Wijnmalen, T. C. L., ‘Nota van Dr. J. F. C. Gericke omtrent de oprichting van een Instituut voor de Inlandsche Talen en Litteratuur’, BK1, third series, IX, 1874, 313–19Google Scholar; Bezemer, (ed.), Beknopte encyclopaedie, 617Google Scholar; Pigeaud, T. G. T., Literature of Java, 3 vols., The Hague, 1967–1970, I, 257Google Scholar.

⁸ For a listing of some texts ascribed to Kěrtapradja, see Rouffaer, G. P., ‘De val van de kraton van Padjang door toedoen van Senapati (c. 1586), volgens de Babad tanah Djawi’, BKI, L, 1899, p. 284, n. 1Google Scholar. See also Vreede, A. C., Catalogus van de Javaansche en Madoereesche handschriften der Leidsche Universiteits-Bibliotheek, Leiden, 1892, 13–14, 147Google Scholar.

⁹ See Pigeaud, , Literature of Java, I, 142, 240Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Meinsma, J. J. (ed.), Babad tanah Djawi. II. Aanteekeningen, 's-Gravenhage, 1877, 3—4, 14Google Scholar. For further information on Taco Roorda, see Bezemer, (ed.), Beknopte encyclopaedic, 463Google Scholar; Uhlenbeck, E. M., A critical survey of studies on the languages of Java and Madura, 's-Gravenhage, 1964, 45–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ See ‘169ste bestuursvergadering 8 januari 1876’, BKI, third series, xi, 1876, pp. xxxvi–xxxviiGoogle Scholar; ‘170ste bestuursvergadering 4 maart 1876 ‘, ibid., pp. xlv–xlvi.

¹² ‘(Bladvulling.) De tekst van de prozabewerking van de Babad tanah Djawi gecastigeerd’, TBG, xxxii, 1899, 556Google Scholar; ‘Register op de proza-omzetting van de Babad tanah Jawi (uitgave van 1874)’, VBG, LI, 4, 1900, 10*Google Scholar.

¹³ Olthof, W. L. (ed. and tr.), Babad tanah Djawi in proza: Javaansche geschiedenis, 2 vols., 's-Gravenhage, 1941CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Teeuw, A., Register op de tekst en vertaling van de Babad tanah Djawi (uitgave 1941), ['s-Gravenhage, 1946]Google Scholar.

¹⁴ The original MS (Leiden cod. Or. 1786) ends with the capture of the rebel Pangeran Singasari in 1768. The published text in 31 vols. by Balai Pustaka (Batawi Centrum, 1939–41) ends with the foundation of Surakarta in 1745–6. The Meinsma text extends to A.J. 1647/A.D. 1722.

¹⁵ See n. 14 above for details of these versions. It would seem that the original text of this babad may have been written by one of the Jasadipuras, although the present writer is not entirely convinced of this attribution, on stylistic grounds; see Pigeaud, , Literature of Java, II, 25, 719–20 (under NBS 26, 29–33)Google Scholar.

¹⁶ The manuscript bears no title. The name Babad kraton is taken from a reference on folio 715 v. (canto clxiii, 3), where the text is called ‘Babad ing karaton’. It is also in this stanza that the authorship of the text is given.

The date of the beginning of the text is given on folio 1 v. (canto i, 1):dal, damar muluk wiku djagat (A.J. 1703/A.D. 1777), while the date for its completion is on folio 715 v. (canto clxiii, 1–2):be, tjatur musna pandita gade (A.J. 1704/A.D. 1778).

Its origin from within the kraton is also confirmed by a note in John Crawfurd's hand at the front of the manuscript. See Ricklefs, M. C., ‘An inventory of the Javanese manuscript collection in the British Museum’, BKI, cxxv, 2, 1969, 251Google Scholar.

¹⁷ See Damais, L. C., ‘Éitudes javanaises. I. Les tombes musulmanes datées de Trålåjå’, BEFEO, XLVIII, 2, 1957, 353–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ de Graaf, H. J., ‘Later Javanese sources and historiography’, in Soedjatmoko, and others (ed.), An introduction to Indonesian historiography, Ithaca, N.Y., 1965, 121Google Scholar.

¹⁹ See Djajadiningrat, Hoesein, Critische beschouwing van de Sadjarah Bantin, Haarlem, 1913, 240–7Google Scholar.

²⁰ This footnote occurs on p. 314.

²¹ This footnote occurs on p. 314.

²² This footnote oocurs on p. 314.

²³ This footnote occurs on p. 315.

²⁴ This footnote occurs on p. 315.

²⁰ The system of romanization for the Javanese texts given here follows that used inPigeaud, T. G. T., Javaans-Nederlands handwoordenboek, Groningen and Batavia, 1938Google Scholar, with the following exceptions: oe here becomes u, é and è become e, e (pěpět) becomes ě.

I am grateful to Dr. T. G. T. Pigeaud and Professor P. J. Zoetmulder for their suggestions regarding the translation of more obscure passages of the Babad kraton text, and of the Surakarta Major Babad text which follows. Responsibility for the translations of course rests entirely with the present writer.

²¹ The text is taken from the Balai Pustaka edition (31 vols., Batawi Centrum, 1939–41).

²² This chronogram has the value A.J. 1600, which is a mistake for &aka 1400/A.D. 1478, as explained in the introduction.

Professor C. C. Berg has suggested (in a letter to the author dated 13 October 1970) that there may be another reading for this chronogram, giving the value A.J. 1400. The discussion here centres on the word rasa. Professor Berg points out that rasan can mean ‘to have a talk with’ and suggests that the sěngkala perhaps means, ‘Destroyed and lost, so people say’. He then suggests that, since rasan ‘to have a talk with’ is a synonym for Javanese tjaturan, and since tjatur is also used in chronograms for the number ‘four’ (via the Sanskrit homonym catur ‘four’), sirna ilang rasaning rat may be intended to mean 1400.

This is a most intriguing suggestion, but it does not seem to be more than an interesting possibility. It is true that rasa can mean ‘talking, speaking’(from Sanskrit rasa ‘sound, word’), and that this is a synonym of Javanese tjatur, which when used in a chronogram has the meaning ‘four’. But rasa has several other meanings as well, including ‘feel, taste’, etc. Such words normally have the value ‘six’rather than ‘four’.

Moreover, the words used in modern Javanese chronograms appear to have standardized values, and the standard value for rasa is ‘six’ while that of tjatur is ‘four’, regardless of whether in some cases their meanings may be related. One certainly does encounter word-plays within chronograms, but it would seem most unlikely that an author would select a word with a standardized numerical value (rasa ‘six’) with the intention of representing some other number (rasa ‘four’), and I know of no other such example.

That rasa is used consistently for ‘six’and that the chronogram here represents 1600 may be seen by comparing the chronogram sirna ilang rasaning rat with the chronogram given for the fall of Plered, A.J. 1600, in Babad kraton (folio 355 r.), sirna ilang rasane ingkang bumi, and in other texts: Babad tanah Djawi (Surakarta Major Sabad version; Balai Pustaka ed., XII, 32): sirna ilang rasane ingkang bumi; British Museum Add. MS 12323 (folio 36 r.): sirna ilang rasaning ratu.

²³ The original MS (Leiden cod. Or. 1786, i, 309–10) has two stanzas at this point, which are partially repetitive and seem to be a mistake in the original. In the Balai Pustaka edition they have been made one stanza. The original MS reads:

92.Lah liněkasan tumuli kawula kang ngrentjangana Madjapahit ngong gě;tjake sampun atanggung ing lampah pan tijang Madjalěngka lěhěng kakang sampun tanggung kakang ing rěmbag kawula

93.lah liněkasana nuli kawula angrentjangana Maospahit ngong gětjěke sampun atanggung ring lampah titijang Madjalěngka tan ana darbe wadya gung Ijan ulun Ian kita kakang

²⁴ The text is taken from the edition by W. L. Olthof ('s-Gravenhage, 1941). There are several unimportant differences in spelling and punctuation between Olthof's version and the original Meinsma edition (1874), 47–9.

The system of romanization used by Olthof has been altered to accord with that used for the other texts here.