Shakespeare’s plays introduce us to
the idea that tyranny is “a perpetual political and human problem rather than a
historical curiosity” (McGrail 1). This suggests that the play is only a
representation of the real political world around the globe, whether it is in England
To
begin with, let us take a brief look at the legend of Ken Arok. The legend is
found in Pararaton, a chronicle of kings, which was written in the 15th
century. Ken Arok was the first king of Singosari in 1222, the founder of
Rajasa dynasty, which represents the lineage of the kings of Singosari and
Majapahit. Majapahit itself was the first powerful Javanese kingdom whose
influence spread around what is nowadays Indonesia . This online source
will be the reference used in the discussion of the legend, unless mentioned
otherwise. To most Indonesian students, Ken Arok is a well-known tragedy of a
usurper that remains to be told in history classes. In relation to political
situation in Indonesia www.indomedia.com/bpost/9901/25/ekbis/ekbis7.htm>.
The
many similarities between Macbeth and Ken Arok start from the prophetic events
that drive them to gain power. Both are told about the prophecy or vision of
their future sovereignity. Both pursue their power in an illegitimate way, by
killing the true ruler. Both stories involve the taking of several lives. Both
also need scapegoats to hide their crime. Both have to see their power taken
over by the true heir and meet their fate in death.
In
terms of their reaction to the events prophesying their future power, Macbeth
and Ken Arok represent those people who choose to conduct evil deeds to fulfill
their ambition. Macbeth is at first a noble fellow. It is not until he listens
to evil suggestion that he changes into a brutish and selfish seeker of power
and status.
First
witch : “All hail, Macbeth! Hail to thee, Thane of Glamis.
Second
witch : All hail, Macbeth! Hail to thee, Thane of Cawdor.
Third
witch : All hail, Macbeth, that shalt be king hereafter! (1.3. 46-48).
Meanwhile, Banquo gets a better
prophecy. The third witch says, “Thou shalt get kings, though thou shall be
none” (1.3. 65).
Macbeth’s
noble nature is shown as he has mixed feeling about the prophecy.
“This supernatural soliciting /
Cannot be ill, cannot be good. If ill, / Why hath it given me earnest of
success, … If good, why do I yield to that suggestion / Whose horrid image doth
unfix my hair …Against the use of nature…If chance will make me king, why,
chance may crown me / Without my stir” (1.3. 129-136, 143).
While
Macbeth is basically a noble man, Ken Arok is as notorious as he can be. Raised
by a thief, Ken Arok is predestined to be a king and the father of kings. In
other words, he is luckier than Macbeth in that he possesses both the prophecy
of Macbeth and Banquo. It is told that three gods, Brahma, Vishnu and Syiva
claim to be his father. Interestingly enough, Ken Arok identifies himself with
Syiva, the god of destruction. There are various stories about the prophecy.
One prevailing belief is that Ken Dedes, the wife of Tunggul Ametung, the king
of Tumapel, a small kingdom where Ken Arok works as a guard, possesses an aura
of wisdom and power, and whoever marries her will be a king and the father of
kings.
Can
we mix prophecy and truth? Those who believe in the prophecy may have found
some truth in it, and use the truth to justify their means. Banquo realizes the
danger of believing in the prophecy. “And oftentimes to win us to our harm /
The instruments of darkness tell us truths, / Win us with honest trifles to
betray’s / In deepest consequence.” (1.3.121-24). However, Macbeth falls into
the temptation. For Macbeth's promotion to occur, the current king, Duncan,
would have to be kicked out. Macbeth also understands that his crime will not
end with Duncan
In
terms of the illegitimate way Macbeth gains his power, he can be considered a
tyrant, as Macduff defines it. “Bleed, bleed, poor country! /Great tyranny, lay
thou thy basis sure, For goodness dare not check thee! wear thou thy wrongs;
The title is affeer’d! Fare thee well, Lord: / I would not be the villain that
thou think’st / For the whole space that’s in the tyrant’s grasp, And the rich
East to boot” (4.3. 32-37). Malcolm’s definition of tyranny is clearer in that
Macbeth’s virtues have given way to abusive power. “This tyrant, whose sole
name blisters our tongue, / Was once thought honest…A good and virtuous name
may recoil / In an imperial charge” (4.3. 12-13, 20).
McGrail
argues that Macbeth does not really fit in Malcom’s description of tyranny. His
desire is only simple, he wants to be loved and be honored (37). It is not
really correct. Although his desire may be as simple as that, the path he takes
shows that he is willing to sacrifice everything to achieve his ambition. His
demand to have his question answered by the three witches proves his
determination.
Though
you untie the winds and let them fight
Against
the churches, though the yeasty waves
Confound
and swallow navigation up,
Though
bladed corn be lodged and trees blown down,
Though
castle topple on their warder’s heads,
Though
palaces and pyramids do slope
Their
heads to their foundations, though the treasure
Of
nature’s germens tumble all together
Even
till destruction sickens, answer me
To
what I ask you. (4.1. 68-76).
Ken
Arok shares Macbeth strong determination. To him, it is apparent that marrying
Ken Dedes would open the possibility of gaining the power. As Macbeth does, he
also needs to get rid of the true ruler. Here is the most famous part of the
legend. First, he has to kill Tunggul Ametung. He then orders a keris, Javanese
double-edged sword, to Mpu Gandring, a keris master. At the appointed time, the
keris is not finished yet. Enraged, Ken Arok kills Mpu Gandring with the
unfinished keris. Just before he dies, Mpu Gandring curses Ken Arok that the
keris will take seven lives of kings, including Ken Arok himself. In Javanese
history, the keris is known as Keris Mpu Gandring.
Different
from Macbeth who is controlled by Lady Macbeth, Ken Arok is an expert in
political strategy. He has a fellow soldier, Kebo Ijo, as the scapegoat. He
lends the keris to Kebo Ijo, who proudly shows the keris in public so that
everybody thinks he is the owner. One night, Ken Arok steals the keris and
kills Tunggul Ametung, leaving the keris in Tunggul Ametung’s body. The rest is
clear; Kebo Ijo is prosecuted while Ken Arok picks the ripe fruit. He becomes
the king of Tumapel and marries Ken Dedes.
The
existence of scapegoat seems to be significant in clearing the path to power. Here
we find another difference between Ken Arok and Macbeth. It is never told
whether Ken Arok actually suffers from guilt. He carefully plans to put Kebo
Ijo as the scapegoat to clear his path without any suspicion. Meanwhile,
Macbeth needs scapegoats not only to cover his crime of murdering Duncan Duncan
That power is abusive is clear as Macbeth
wants to prevent Banquo from having his prophecy put into reality. Macbeth
wants his descendants, rather than Banquo’s, to be kings. The only way is to
get rid of Banquo.
Then,
prophet-like, / They hailed him father to a line of kings. / Upon my head they placed a fruitless crown,…No son of
mine succeeding. If’t be so, / For Banquo’s
issue have I filed my mind…Given to the common enemy of man / To make them kings, the seeds of Banquo kings. /
Rather than so, come fate into the list
/ And champion me to th’ utterance” (3.1. 60-73).
Banquo’s murder triggers Macbeth’s
guilt, yet does not prevent him from taking more life to maintain his throne.
The murder of innocent family of Macduff shows that Macbeth puts the security
of his reign over honor. He is a Machiavellist, in that he fits to
Machiavelli’s political strategy which states that security should be put first
in cases in which security is in conflict with honor (Viroli 91).
While
the successive killing puts Banquo as the third victim with the motive of
preventing his prophecy to happen, the successive murder in the legend of Ken
Arok is the realization of Mpu Gandring’s curse. This is a story of
never-ending revenge that accompanies Ken Arok’s story of success and
imperialism. History mentions that he annexed the neighboring kingdom and
established a new one, the kingdom
of Singosari
Both
Macbeth and Ken Arok are Machiavellists, and both are defeated by the
legitimate power. Anusapati, the true heir of Tunggul Ametung, gains his sovereignity
after taking revenge of his father’s death. Malcolm gains the throne he
deserves as the true heir of Duncan
Macduff’s
speech suggests that Macbeth serves as an example of tyranny to the world. This
works for Ken Arok too. While many interpretations state that the legend of Ken
Arok and Ken Dedes is a mere fiction, it is actually a reflection of the mindsets
and ideological contestations in Indonesia East Java
and witnesses the beginning of Islamic era in Javanese history. These can be regarded as palimpsests of
Indonesian history, which have continued to give shape and colour to Indonesian
cultural and political life to date. Pramudya Ananta Toer, an
internationally-recognized Indonesian author, yet the victim of severe political
discrimination at home, has a troubling view of the first two presidents of Indonesia Indonesia .
However,
Barbara Reibling argues that Macbeth is not really a Machiavelli’s ideal prince. His biggest flaw is his
reluctance to have a total commitment to “the course of wrongdoings, besides
his inability to dissimulate” (280). The problem with her interpretation is
that she intends to say whether one is an ideal Machiavellist, whereas the
concept of Machiavelli itself entails a room for wrongdoings. It is clear that
that a Machiavelli should be willing to be a real evil, with no guilt at all. Maurizio
Viroli points out that, for Machiavelli, a good citizen should be prepared to
do evil, or what is considered to be evil, to save the country. Yet, his
writings also imply “the willingness to grand deeds, and even to waste one’s
life, one’s soul” (8). Riebling’s case is right in proving Macbeth as a normal
human being with conscience, her strict use of Machiavellian standards is
debatable. Judging from his strength, courage, and willingness to commit evil,
I would argue that Macbeth is a Machiavellist. He understands that power is
abusive, knows what is good and evil, but chooses evil anyway. That is why he
deserves the destruction at the end of the play. I agree with Macduff and
Christianto Wibisono that Macbeth and Ken Arok
are examples of dirty politicians, and that the world should learn from their fate in order that we
can play a clean government.
WORKS CITED
“Adu
Domba demi Status Quo.” www.indomedia.com/bpost/9901/25/ekbis/ekbis7.htm.
18 April 2003 .
Ananta
Toer, Pramudya. “My Apologies, in the Name of Experience.” November 1991. 18 April 2003 . .
“Ken Arok.” 18 April 2003 . www.jawapalace.org/kenarok.html>.
McGrail, Mary Ann. Tyranny in
Shakespeare. Lanham: Lexington
Riebling,
Barbara. “Virtues’s Sacrifice: A Machiavellian Reading of Macbeth.” Studies
in English Literature (Rice) 31 (1991): 273-87.
Viroli,
Maurizio. Machiavelli. Oxford Oxford
No comments:
Post a Comment