The Wangsakerta Manuscripts, a collection of six writings
attributed to Prince Wangsakerta of Cirebon, have long been a source of
controversy among historians and philologists. Believed to have been penned in
the 17th century under the prince’s direction, these manuscripts claim to
chronicle the cultural history of the Nusantara region, stretching as far back
as the first century AD. However, despite their apparent historical
significance, the manuscripts have raised many questions, particularly
regarding their authenticity and the motivations behind their creation.
The Wangsakerta Manuscripts are said to have been written
during a “scientific conference” called Gotrasawala, organized by Prince
Wangsakerta himself. This conference supposedly gathered scholars and
intellectuals to compile and document the rich history of the region. The
result was a detailed account that filled many gaps in the ancient history of
Nusantara. However, it wasn’t long before the manuscripts’ legitimacy was
called into question.
One of the most vocal critics of the Wangsakerta Manuscripts
was Boechari, a renowned historian specializing in Hindu-Buddhist culture. In
his 1988 critique titled Some Criticisms of the Wangsakerta Manuscripts,
Boechari pointed out several anomalies. Chief among these was the use of Old
Javanese in the manuscripts—a language that had fallen out of use by the time
the manuscripts were supposedly written. Old Javanese was last employed in
Javanese courts during the late Majapahit Kingdom, around three centuries
before Prince Wangsakerta’s time. This linguistic choice struck Boechari as
highly unusual, especially given that Cirebon was an Islamic court, where Old
Javanese would not have been the norm.
Despite the doubts surrounding the manuscripts, Prince
Wangsakerta himself was a real historical figure, playing a key role in the
complex political landscape of 17th-century Java. His story is intertwined with
the broader history of the Mataram Kingdom, which was undergoing significant
upheaval at the time.
The late 17th century was a period of great instability for
the Mataram Kingdom, which had reached its zenith under Sultan Agung in the
early to mid-17th century. However, the kingdom’s power began to wane under
Sultan Agung’s successor, Sunan Amangkurat I. Amangkurat I faced a formidable
challenge from Prince Trunojoyo of Madura, whose rebellion gradually eroded
Mataram’s control over its eastern territories.
As Mataram’s influence weakened, its vassal states,
including Cirebon, were drawn into the conflict. Cirebon had already been on
shaky ground after its defeat by Banten in the Tanara Sea during the 1650s. In
response, Amangkurat I detained Cirebon’s ruler, Panembahan Girilaya, at the
Mataram court, fearing that Cirebon might ally with Banten.
With Panembahan Girilaya detained, his youngest son, Prince
Wangsakerta, was thrust into the role of ruler, despite having little
preparation for the position. His elder brothers, Prince Martawijaya and Prince
Kertawijaya, were also held in Mataram, leaving Wangsakerta as the only
available heir to manage Cirebon’s affairs. However, his reign was far from
autonomous. Wangsakerta had to operate under the watchful eye of a
Mataram-appointed advisor, Martadipa, who effectively controlled the kingdom’s
decisions.
For years, Wangsakerta ruled Cirebon in his father’s stead,
yet his position was tenuous. It wasn’t until 1677, when Trunojoyo’s forces
overran the Mataram Palace, that the situation began to change. Trunojoyo,
allied with Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa of Banten, rescued Wangsakerta’s brothers
and sent them to Banten. Soon after, Trunojoyo’s forces invaded Cirebon,
driving out Mataram’s influence and declaring Cirebon independent under Banten’s
protection.
In the aftermath of these events, Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa
appointed the three Cirebon princes as rulers, but in a way that sowed the
seeds of future conflict. Prince Martawijaya became Sultan Sepuh, ruling over
Kasepuhan, while Prince Kertawijaya became Sultan Anom, governing Kanoman.
Wangsakerta, despite his years of service, was given only the title of
Panembahan and was not granted a territory to rule. Instead, he was tasked with
managing the royal manuscripts—a decision that likely contributed to the creation
of the Wangsakerta Manuscripts.
This division of power among the three brothers led to a
rivalry that would later destabilize Cirebon. The competition for dominance in
the region was only resolved when the Dutch East India Company (VOC)
intervened, taking control of Cirebon from Banten in 1681.
The Wangsakerta Manuscripts remain a controversial subject
in Indonesian history. While they offer a detailed account of the region’s
past, their authenticity is still debated. The linguistic and historical
inconsistencies pointed out by scholars like Boechari have cast a long shadow
over the manuscripts’ credibility.
Nevertheless, the story of Prince Wangsakerta and the
tumultuous period in which he lived provides valuable insights into the
complexities of Javanese politics in the 17th century. Whether the manuscripts
are genuine or not, they serve as a reminder of the challenges faced by
historians in reconstructing the past, particularly in regions where oral
traditions and written records are often intertwined with myth and legend.
As historians continue to explore the Wangsakerta
Manuscripts, they must navigate the fine line between history and fiction,
carefully weighing the evidence to uncover the truth behind these enigmatic
texts.
Comments
Post a Comment