No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 July 2015
Collins’ book presents a comprehensive, if necessarily concise, approach to the issue of the relations between Sanskrit—very broadly conceived, including various South Asian languages and writing systems—and Malay, equally broadly conceived, as his work contains forays into other Austronesian languages such as Tagalog, Batak, Rejang, and so on. Collins is not a Sanskrit specialist. Besides, in such a comprehensive and succinct work, covering so many fields, it is inevitable that the author will occasionally fall short here and there, although this in no way detracts from the value of his book. In particular, there is a complex interlocution that the author weaves throughout his text with his intended audience (see below for details). Collins has in fact made a name for himself in Malay linguistics, and perhaps his best known work (extant both in English and Indonesian translation) is Malay, World Language: A Short History. In the book reviewed here, Collins largely taps into over a quarter of a century of his own research and publications in English, Malay, and Indonesian, as well as a plethora of centuries-old colonial works related to Nusantara, originally published in Spanish, Dutch, English, French, and German (he can apparently read in all these languages, bar perhaps Spanish). It is a very informative and delightful work, and it should be translated into English and made more widely known.
1 Collins, James T. (1998), Malay, World Language: A Short History, Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan PustakaGoogle Scholar (Indonesian translation (2005), Bahasa Melayu, bahasa dunia: sejarah singkat, Jakarta: Yayasan Obor & KITLV).
2 It is perhaps apposite to note here that an internet search for ‘ilmu Nusantara’ brings up many sites related to ilmu ghaib or ilmu kejawen, ilmu hikmah, and so on, all names related to esoteric and mystical sciences.
3 The article was originally published in French, and was only made available in English translation in Malaysia in 1992, and in Malay as late as 2009 (see below).
4 See, for instance, http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/248240, [accessed 30 June 2015]. (It is a paid site.)
5 I am not surprised, as there are hardly any scholars who know either Portuguese or Dutch either, even for reading purposes only—two languages which are also important for the study of Malaysia's past. Romo Kuntoro, a recently deceased Indonesian scholar, knew some Sanskrit and was quite knowledgeable about all forms of Javanese. There seem to be quite a few people around who know some Sanskrit, both locals and Westerners, but unlike in Thailand, there are no certified specialists as such. Udayana University, together with the Indian government, intends to establish a Sanskrit course (see http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/india-corner-at-indonesia-s-udayana-university-113112700440_1.html, [accessed 30 June 2015]). Arlo Griffiths in Jakarta knows both Old Javanese and Sanskrit, and Andrea Acri from the Nalanda-Sriwijaya Centre in Singapore is currently teaching Sanskrit at Udayana. It is interesting to think that Nusantara is today in a position not entirely different to that of a country in the West without any Classics departments, and therefore hardly any scholars who know either Latin or Ancient Greek well.
6 See, in this regard, Nair-Venugopal, Shanta (ed.) (2012), The Gaze of the West and Framings of the East, New York: Palgrave MacmillanCrossRefGoogle Scholar, although not all essays in this volume are by locals or concern local matters. I must also add here that the Malaysian editor is far from insensitive to the intricacies of Indic and other heritage in Malaysia.
7 Griffiths, Arlo (2009), Bijdrage tot de Taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde, 165 (2–3): pp. 385–388Google Scholar.
8 Pollock, Sheldon (2006), The Language of the Gods in the World of Men. Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India, Berkeley: University of California PressGoogle Scholar.
9 See Pollock, Sheldon (1998), The Cosmopolitan Vernacular, Journal of Asian Studies, 57 (1): p. 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 Ricci, Ronit (2011), Islam Translated: Literature, Conversion, and the Arabic Cosmopolis of South and Southeast Asia, Chicago: University of Chicago PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Sawhney, Simona (2009), The Modernity of Sanskrit, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota PressGoogle Scholar.
12 It now also exists in Hindi translation: Gonda, J. and Pandeya, Alakhanirañjana (2001), Indoneśiyā mem Samskrta, Varanasi: Sampurnananda Samskrta ViśvavidyalayaGoogle Scholar.
13 Dato’ or Datuk is an official, prestigious non-hereditary title, not entirely unlike ‘Lord’ or ‘Lady’ in the United Kingdom.
14 Cœdés, George, Metzger, Laurent (trans), and Omar, Asmah Haji (ed.) (2009), Inskripsi Melayu Sriwijaya, Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, p. xivGoogle Scholar.
15 Ideologically but also constitutionally, ‘Malay’ is defined in Malaysia as someone who speaks Malay and is a Muslim. In this way, non-Muslim Malays, even though they may be a sociological reality, especially but not only in the past, are, legally speaking, virtually impossible.
16 Manguin, Pierre-Yves writes the useful introduction to the collected papers by Coedès and Damais: Coedès, George and Louis-Charles Damais (1992), Sriwijaya: History, Religion and Language of an Early Malay Polity, Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic SocietyGoogle Scholar.