Not the Utawi You Think You Know

edited by Ronit RICCI and Fadhli LUKMAN • 25.3 (2025) ISSN 0806-198X DOI 10.5617/jais.12772 ACROSS THE MUSLIM WORLD A Comparative Perspective Themed Section Contents FADHLI LUKMAN and RONIT RICCI Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5 A.C.S. PEACOCK Medieval Eastern Turkish Interlinear Translation: Their Manuscripts, Audience, and Persian Background................................................................................... 19 AGLAIA IANKOVSKAIA A World of Words and Words for the World: Encyclopaedism and Language Learning in a 19th-century Arabic-Malay Vocabulary ...................................... 51 RAPHAEL MICHAELI Interlinear Translation in Textual Performance: The Usage of Swahili in Arabic Mawlid Readings from East Africa ................................................................... 73 FADHLI LUKMAN Surau Texts Translated: Translation in Form, Textual Analysis in Substance .................. 103 MIDORI KAWASHIMA Ingenuity Between the Lines: Interlinear Translation from Arabic to Malay to Vernacular in Mindanao ................................................................................................ 123 MUHAMMAD DLUHA LUTHFILLAH Not the Utawi You Think You Know: Some Preliminary Notes on Early Javanese Interlinear Translations ...................................................................................... 175 RONIT RICCI Interlinear Texts from Indonesia: Preliminary Thoughts on Their Study ......................... 197 Notes on Contributors ....................................................................................................... 221 Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies • 25.3 (2025) IntlinTr: 175–195 © Muhammad Dluha Luthfillah, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, IL ISSN 0806-198X DOI 10.5617/jais.12698 Not the Utawi You Think You Know: Some Preliminary Notes on Early Javanese Interlinear Translations MUHAMMAD DLUHA LUTHFILLAH (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)1 Abstract This article explores the historical trajectory of the Javanese word utawi within the tradition of interlinear translation of Arabic Islamic texts from the 16th to the 19th century. While in contemporary usage— particularly within pesantren communities where this translation practice has largely survived—utawi serves as a marker of the mubtadaʾ (subject) in nominal sentences, earlier evidence reveals a more layered history. Based on close philological analysis of manuscripts, the study demonstrates that in the 16th and 17th centuries utawi was primarily employed to render the wāw al-istiʾnāf, an Arabic particle that signals the beginning of a new sentence or clause. Only gradually, especially during the 18th century, did utawi become stabilized as a marker of the mubtadaʾ, a pattern that continued into the 19th century and even today. This diachronic shift highlights not only the changing role of a single lexical item but also broader pedagogical and linguistic transformations in the Javanese Islamic tradition. By tracing these developments, the article contributes to a more precise understanding of the internal mechanics of interlinear translation and proposes that patterns of utawi usage can serve as valuable indicators for the dating of otherwise anonymous manuscripts. Ultimately, this study situates utawi as both a linguistic key and a historical witness to the intellectual practices that shaped Islamic learning in Java. Keywords: utawi, Arabic-Javanese interlinear translation, pesantren, Islamic manuscript culture, mubtadaʾ, wāw al-istiʾnāf. 1 This research was made possible through the generous support of Textual Microcosms: A New Approach in Translation Studies, a project funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 101001731). I am profoundly grateful to Professor Ronit Ricci, the project’s principal investigator and my academic supervisor, for her consistently incisive and constructive insights, and for her patient and compassionate mentorship in shaping me into a more rigorous scholar. I also extend my sincere thanks to Bang Fadhli Lukman who generously made time for our late-night discussions. I am deeply indebted to both for their invaluable intellectual contributions. Any remaining errors or inaccuracies are solely my own responsibility. Muhammad Dluha Luthfillah • 25.3 (2025) IntlinTr: 175–195 Page | 176 Introduction One of the most striking features of early Islamic literature in Java is its systematic use of interlinear translation, a pedagogical and commentarial method that allowed readers to access Arabic religious texts through the local language, Javanese. Within this system, certain words functioned as grammatical and discursive markers, guiding readers through the syntactic and semantic structure of the source text. Among these, the word utawi, the focus of this article, stands out for its consistent presence and evolving role across manuscripts from the 16th century until today. While utawi is most commonly known today as an indicator of the subject of a nominal Arabic sentence (mubtadaʾ), its historical usage suggests a more complex trajectory that deserves closer examination. Despite the abundance of scholarship on Javanese literature and Islamic manuscript traditions, few studies have addressed the grammatical mechanics of interlinear translation, and even fewer have examined the diachronic development of specific translation devices like utawi. Existing works tend to focus either on the content of these manuscripts or on broader questions of Islamization and textual transmission.2 While pioneering scholars have provided invaluable insights into the literary and historical contexts of Javanese Islamic texts,3 they did not delve into the microstructure of translation practices. The internal linguistic system these texts employ remains largely underexplored, leaving open the question of how specific grammatical markers emerged, stabilized, or shifted in meaning and function over time. Before proceeding further, a brief introduction of the system of interlinear translation practiced in Java merits attention here. Among the communities that employ it—most notably the pesantren (Islamic boarding school) milieu—this system is often referred to as the “utawi-iki-iku translation system.” The use of utawi-iki-iku as a shorthand for pesantren interlinear translation system likely stems from the frequent appearance of these three words, particularly in the translation of chapter titles in classical texts. The classical books studied in pesantren are typically divided into chapters, each introduced by a simple phrase such as bāb al-ṭahāra (chapter on purification) or bāb al-bayʿ (chapter on trade). To translate these chapter titles, pesantren scholars developed a complex grammatical analysis and rendered that analysis into Javanese. 2 Merle C. Ricklefs, Mystic Synthesis in Java: A History of Islamization from the Fourteenth to the Early Nineteenth Centuries (East Bridge, 2006); G.W.J. Drewes, The Admonitions of Seh Bari: A 16th Century Javanese Muslim Text Attributed to the Saint of Bonan Re-Edited and Translated with an Introduction (Springer Netherlands, 1969); Azyumardi Azra, Jaringan Ulama: Timur Tengah dan Kepulauan Nusantara Abad XVII Dan XVIII: Melacak Akar-Akar Pembaruan Pemikiran Islam di Indonesia (Mizan, 1994). 3 See, for example, G.W.J. Drewes, Een Javaanse Primbon: Uit De Zestiende Eeuw Opnieuw Uitgegeven En Vertaald (Brill, 1954); G.W.J. Drewes and L.F. Brakel, The Poems of Hamzah Fansuri (Foris Publication, 1986); Nancy K. Florida, Writing the Past, Inscribing the Future (Duke University Press, 1995); Merle C. Ricklefs, The Seen and Unseen Worlds in Java, 1726–1749: History, Literature and Islam in the Court of Pakubuwana II (University of Hawai‘i Press, 1998); Ronit Ricci, Islam Translated: Literature, Conversion, and the Arabic Cosmopolis of South and Southeast Asia (University of Chicago Press, 2011). Not the Utawi You Think You Know • 25.3 (2025) IntlinTr: 175–195 Page | 177 Written Arabic original bāb al-ṣalā Grammatically analyzed [hādhā] bāb [fī bayān] al-ṣalā Utawi-iki-iku translation [utawi iki iku] bab [ingdalem nerangaken] ṣalāt English translation [utawi this is] a chapter [on explaining] prayer Table 1 Translation of an Arabic chapter title with utawi-iki-iku system Upon grammatical analysis, bāb al-ṣalā is understood as a shortened form of hādhā bāb fī bayān al-ṣalā (this is a chapter explaining purification), where hādhā functions as the mubtadaʾ (subject) and bāb as the khabar (predicate). In modern pesantren interlinear translation, mubtadaʾ and khabar are typically rendered with utawi and iku, respectively, resulting in a full translation of bāb al-ṣalā as utawi iki iku bab ingdalem nerangaken ṣalāt (utawi this is a chapter on explaining prayer).4 This analytical approach is applied not only to chapter titles but also to any phrase requiring similar treatment, making utawi-iki-iku so common that it has come to represent the distinctive translation system of pesantren. Fig. 1 An interlinear translation of an Arabic phrase into Javanese using the utawi-iki-iku system Studies such as those by Sidney Jones and Aly Basalamah have tried to provide a sort of introduction to the system.5 They indicate that by the 20th century, Javanese Muslims had developed a distinct system to interlinearly translate Arabic textbooks. One key feature of this system, as Basalamah describes it, is a form of “bahasa simbolik” (symbolic language) 4 Utawi is left untranslated here and kept at the beginning of the sentence to reflect its position in the original Javanese text, while the rest of the sentence has English equivalents, including “is” for iku. 5 Sidney Jones, “Arabic Instruction and Literacy in Javanese Muslim Schools,” International Journal of Society and Language 42 (1983): 83–94; Aly Abubakar Basalamah, “Memahami Kitab Kuning Melalui Terjemahan Tradisional: Suatu Pendekatan Tradisional Terjemahan Pondok Pesantren,” Al-Jami’ah 55 (1994): 61–69. Muhammad Dluha Luthfillah • 25.3 (2025) IntlinTr: 175–195 Page | 178 that encodes grammatical positions, morphemic changes, and other linguistic elements, including words like utawi. Beyond utawi, the system developed symbols to indicate a wide range of grammatical (naḥw) statuses—such as ing for mafʿūl bih (object) and apane for tamyīz (a specifier)—as well as several other aspects, including morphology (ṣarf), particularly in marking past (māḍī) and future (mustaqbal) tenses when they need to be explicitly shown.6 Interlinear translation practices in pesantren served a dual purpose: they facilitated both the study of the textbook’s content and the learning of Arabic itself. As neither Jones nor Basalamah focuses on any particular pesantren as a case study, their research implies that this interlinear translation system had become a widely recognized convention across Javanese-speaking regions. Building on the research of Jones and Basalamah and connecting it with what I have observed in the interlinear translation practices in pesantren, I believe that Javanese Muslims, particularly those in pesantren communities, have taken for granted that this system has been a long-established convention, not only in the present but even in centuries past. This study aims to fill part of that gap, namely the lack of detailed analysis of the internal linguistic mechanics of Javanese interlinear translation and their historical development, and to challenge that taken-for-granted approach to the Javanese interlinear translation system. In doing so the study traces the historical trajectory of utawi as it appears mainly in a corpus of interlinear Javanese translations of Arabic texts dated between the 16th and 19th centuries. It draws on close philological analysis of selected manuscripts from pesantren collections and public archives, examining not only the appearance of utawi but also its syntactic environments and co-occurrence with other translation markers. The investigation is guided by a diachronic framework, allowing for the identification of gradual shifts, ruptures, and moments of stabilization in translation practice. Throughout this article I argue that the function of utawi shifted over time—initially serving to render the Arabic conjunction wāw al-istiʾnāf (a type of wāw, “and”, that starts a new, independent sentence or clause) and later becoming stabilized as a marker of the mubtadaʾ.7 This analysis relies on both dated and undated manuscripts, with the aim of establishing not only patterns of linguistic change but also potential implications for dating anonymous texts. By doing so, I aim to provide new insights into the evolution of the Javanese interlinear tradition, demonstrating how the changing role of utawi reflects broader pedagogical and linguistic transformations in Islamic Java. Ultimately, this micro-level focus contributes to a more nuanced understanding of textual transmission, local hermeneutics, and the historical development of Islamic education in the region. 6 Saiful Umam, “Localizing Islamic Orthodoxy in Northern Coastal Java in the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries: A Study of Pegon Islamic Texts” (PhD Dissertation, University of Hawai’i, 2011). Following on Umam’s footsteps, Muhammad Jaeni and Sahal Mahfudh provide a more detailed and comprehensive discussion of this system. See Muhammad Jaeni, “Pola-Pola Pengapsahan Kitab Pesantren Kiai Pesisir Utara Jawa Tengah Abad XIX-XX: Kajian Histori-Sosiolinguistik” (UIN Walisongo, 2019); Sahal Mahfudh, “Al-Kitāba al-ʿArabiyya Li-Lughat al-Jāwiyyah (Pegon): Dirāsa Lughawiyya Ijtimāʿiyya ʿalā - Stibqāʾihā Fī Mujtamaʿ al-Besantren al-Taqlīdī Bi-Jāwā” (UIN Sunan Kalijaga, 2023). 7 It is important to note that a mubtadaʾ refers only to the subject of a nominal sentence. The subject of a verbal sentence is called a fāʿil (literally “the doer,” or “the one who performs an action”). Not the Utawi You Think You Know • 25.3 (2025) IntlinTr: 175–195 Page | 179 Utawi (واتا or يواتا) Gericke and Roorda explain that utawi is a refined form of atawa or utawa.8 In Javanese, this word functions as a “conjunction that links what follows to what precedes it, [presenting it as an alternative or] as something else” and serves as a counterpart to Dutch words such as of (or), en/of anders (and/or otherwise), als ook (as well), and ook (also).9 Elsewhere, Gericke and Roorda also note that Javanese speakers do not always use utawi in this sense.10 In other words, Javanese speakers express such conjunctional meanings with alternative forms and use atawa-utawa-utawi more flexibly to express additional meanings. The word utawi is used very frequently in two manuscripts known to date as the earliest witnesses of Arabic-Javanese interlinear translation practices. Purchased by Jan Theunisz (d. 1638) in the Netherlands around 1610 and now kept in the library of the University of Amsterdam, I F 31 and I H 1 recorded the appearance of utawi more than a hundred times.11 In all these instances, I found that utawi is used in translations of words that are preceded by the Arabic particle wāw, known in Arabic grammar as wāw al-istiʾnāf.12 As an introduction to a new sentence, what follows it might be a nominal sentence (jumla ismiyya) or a verbal one (jumla fiʿliyya). In the case of a nominal sentence, the first word following the wāw is the mubtadaʾ and can only be a noun (ism) or a word that acts as a noun (similar to the English infinitive). With this in mind, and considering the modern understanding of utawi in the utawi-iku system as rendering the mubtadaʾ status, the clearest examples supporting my 8 It is interesting to note that utawi is one of very few words, if not the only one from the krama (refined) register used as grammatical indicators in the utawi-iki-iku translation system. 9 Johann F.C. Gericke and Taco Roorda, Javaansch-Nederlandsch Handwoordenboek (Brill, 1901), 1:86. 10 Johann F.C. Gericke and Taco Roorda, Javaansch-Nederduitsch Woordenboek (Johannes Müller, 1847), 33. 11 Although often attested as the earliest Javanese interlinear manuscripts, the two manuscripts have enjoyed very little attention from scholars. To the best of my knowledge, only Nur Ahmad has revisited these two manuscripts in a few short essays of his. His writings on these manuscripts were initially published around 2017 as popular essays on the Islamic website www.alif.id. In 2020, they were compiled into a book titled Wajah Islam Nusantara: Jejak Tradisi Santri, Aksara Pegon, dan Keberislaman dalam Manuskrip Kuno (Tangerang: Pustaka Compass, 2020). However, his analysis remains limited to the translation of two Arabic words, which he argues are uniquely adapted to the local linguistic context, without delving further into the manuscripts themselves. The two words in question are siwāk, which is translated as susur (betel chewing?), and safar, which is translated as pelayaran (sailing). Ahmad then connects both terms to the socio-cultural context of Javanese society, which was familiar with both betel chewing and seafaring. For further discussion, see https://jangkah.id/2024/01/11/islam-akses-literasi-dan-pribumisasi-pelajaran-daridua-manuskrip-kitab-fikih-dengan-terjemah-pegon-jawa-tahun-1610-m/, accessed in March 2025. It is worth noting that Ahmad draws these examples only from the translation practices found in the Kitab alĪḍāḥ (cataloged as I H 1). For more about I F 31 and I H 1, see also Hendrik Frederik Wijnman, “De Hebraïcus Jan Theunisz Barbarossius Alias Johannes Antonides Als Lector in Het Arabisch Aan de Leidse Universiteit (1612/1613). Een Hoofdstuk Amsterdamse Geleerdengeschiedenis,” Studia Rosenthaliana 2, no. 2 (1968): 22–23. 12 I follow Dror’s translation of Bābitī’s definition of wāw al-istiʾnāf. She writes that “wāw l-isti’nāf is used as a particle with which a speech begins, [or] the sentence that followed it is completely independent in meaning from the sentence that precedes it.” Yehudit Dror, “Is Each Particle in the Qurʾān Translatable? The Case of Wāw al-Istiʾnāf Preceding the Fawāṣil,” Babel 61, no. 1 (2015): 24. Muhammad Dluha Luthfillah • 25.3 (2025) IntlinTr: 175–195 Page | 180 argument are cases where utawi is followed by a word that is not a noun or noun-like, i.e., fiʿl (verb) or ḥarf.13 Such examples are not uncommon in both of these texts. In I F 31, we encounter wayajūzu (and it is allowed), which is translated as utawi wenang (utawi is allowed) (Fig. 1). Since yajūzu is a verb, it cannot directly serve as a mubtadaʾ unless it is either nominalized (e.g., jawāz) or introduced by a particle such as an, forming an yajūza. In this case, yajūzu appears directly after the wāw (wa-yajūzu), which means the word—yajūzu—cannot function as a mubtadaʾ. Yet it is translated as utawi wenang. This raises a problem: since wenang corresponds to yajūzu, it is unlikely that utawi is translating the mubtadaʾ. Instead, it seems that utawi is being used to render the particle wa. Fig. 2 Al-Ghāya wa-l-Taqrīb, Library of the University of Amsterdam, I F 1, fol. 34. A wāw-rendering utawi is followed by the verb yajūzu (wenang, “is allowed”). The istiʾnāf function of the wāw is especially important in Arabic, which doesn’t use punctuation marks like periods, commas, or others to indicate the position of words, phrases, or sentences within a text. To clarify the istiʾnāf function of wāw, I will provide a more complete context of the sentence from this example. Wa-ṣalātu l-jamāʿati sunnatun muʾakkad. [sic.] Wa-yajibu ʿalā l-maʾmūmi an yanwiya l-jamāʿata dūna l-imāmi. Wa-yajūzu an yaʾtamma al-ḥurru bi-l-ʿabdi. Congregational prayer is a sunna muʾakkad (highly emphasized practice/tradition). A maʾmūm (congregant) is required to have an intention (niyya) to join the congregation, but the imām (prayer leader) is not. A free person is allowed to become a maʾmūm (congregant) of a slave.14 In this “paragraph” the wāw does not function as a conjunction but rather marks the beginning of a new sentence. This role is similar to that of, in English, a capital letter after a period, which signals the end of the previous sentence. When encountering a period, a reader 13 Finding an exact English equivalent for ḥarf is quite challenging—if one exists at all. In Arabic grammar, ḥarf is part of the tripartite division of parts of speech, alongside ism and fiʿl. While ism is commonly equated with “noun” and fiʿl with “verb,” ḥarf is almost always defined in negative terms. Sībawayh, one of the foundational figures in Arabic grammatical theory, describes ḥarf as “that which conveys a meaning but is neither a noun nor a verb” (jāʾa li-maʿnan laysa bi-sm wa-lā fiʿl) Sībawayh, Al-Kitāb (Maktaba al-Khānjī, 1988), 1:12. As such, ḥarf encompasses a wide range of categories that, in English grammar, would be distributed across distinct parts of speech—namely, prepositions, conjunctions, and particles. 14 I F 31, fols. 33–34 Not the Utawi You Think You Know • 25.3 (2025) IntlinTr: 175–195 Page | 181 immediately knows that the sentence they are reading has ended, and what follows is the start of a new sentence. Similarly, when encountering wāw al-istiʾnāf, a reader immediately knows that they are facing a new sentence, and the previous one has concluded. In I H 1, we encounter another case, when wa-idhā (and when/if) is translated as utawi tatkala (utawi when/if) (Fig. 2). This is an even stronger example because idhā is a conditional particle (adāt al-sharṭ), so there is no way the particle can serve as a mubtadaʾ in a sentence. However, the interlinear translation uses utawi tatkala. Using the same logic as before, we can identify tatkala as rendering idhā, and once again, utawi is translating the particle wa. The function of istiʾnāf in this example is also easier to recognize because it is the first sentence in a new kitāb (literally “book,” but used here in the sense of “chapter”). Fig. 3 Al-Īḍāḥ, Library of the University of Amsterdam, I H 1, fol. 13. A wāw-rendering utawi is followed by the conditional particle idhā (tatkala [when/if]). The only instance of utawi that clearly represents the position of the mubtadaʾ—as it does in modern usage—is in the phrase kullu māʾin (all kinds of water) on fol. 2 of I H 1 (Fig. 3). This word begins the first sentence of a new kitāb, does not have wāw al-istiʾnāf, but is translated with utawi. Apart from this example, utawi is always used to translate the istiʾnāf function of wāw. Fig. 4 Al-Īḍāḥ, Library of the University of Amsterdam, I H 1, fol. 2. The only utawi to function as indicating the mubtadaʾ status. The use of utawi to render a mubtadaʾ that is not preceded by wāw al-istiʾnāf appears more frequently in Sloane 2645 from the British Library collection, a copy of al-Muqaddima al- Muhammad Dluha Luthfillah • 25.3 (2025) IntlinTr: 175–195 Page | 188 commonly occurring phrase, is no longer translated with utawi as it typically is. This suggests a discernible shift, with the use of utawi to translate the mubtadaʾ becoming increasingly dominant. The dominance of utawi-for-mubtadaʾ appears to have remained relatively stable until the first quarter of the 18th century, as evidenced in the manuscript Or. 5675 from the Leiden University Library. This manuscript, dated 1142 AH (1729–30 AD), consistently translates the mubtadaʾ with or without wāw al-istiʾnāf using utawi. Although there are a few instances where the mubtadaʾ is translated without utawi, these occurrences are sufficiently rare and can be regarded as human errors. The translations of huwa/hiya, wa-ammā, fa-ammā, and wa-ʿlam remain consistently without utawi, reflecting the same pattern observed in the PNRI A 97 manuscript. Of particular note in Or. 5675 is the complete absence of instances where wāw al-istiʾnāf, followed by fiʿl or ḥarf, are translated with utawi. This suggests the dominance of utawi-for-mubtadaʾ. Nevertheless, this manuscript does not signify the end of the use of utawi-for-istiʾnāf. Another Leiden collection, Or. 1842, which includes colophons dating from 1168/1754-5 and 1186/1772-3, offers important evidence for that. In this manuscript we observe the same general pattern of utawi usage with a continued dominance of utawi-for-mubtadaʾ. Yet, utawi continues to appear in the translation of wāw al-istiʾnāf followed by fiʿl and ḥarf, albeit with considerably lower frequency.29 Fig. 7 An untitled tract from al-Rifāʿī order, Leiden University Library, Or. 1842, fol. 346r. The use of utawi to translate wāw al-istiʾnāf followed by a fiʿl. 29 Another example is found in fol. 336v, where wa-yajibu (and it is mandatory) is translated as utawi wajib (utawi mandatory). Additionally, an interesting case of translation variation appears on fol. 106r, where two instances of wa-mā—where mā functions as a ḥarf nafī (negative particle)—are translated differently, offering an intriguing example of ḥarf usage. In this instance, the first wa-mā appears in wa-mā mashā aḥad (and no one is walking) and translates to utawi oratah lumaku wong sawiji (utawi someone is not walking). The second wa-mā appears in wa-mā awā aḥad (and no one is going down) and translates to lan ora tumurun wong sawiji (and someone is not going down). The use of utawi and lan may indicate the translator’s different understandings of the two instances of wa-mā: the first as istiʾnāf, thus rendered with utawi, and the second as ʿaṭaf (conjunction), rendered with lan. Not the Utawi You Think You Know • 25.3 (2025) IntlinTr: 175–195 Page | 189 The manuscripts reveal a gradual shift in the dominant usage of utawi from translating wāw al-istiʾnāf to translating mubtadaʾ. This transition is marked by several observable symptoms, two of the most notable being the increasing frequency with which utawi is used to translate mubtadaʾ without a preceding wāw al-istiʾnāf and the absence of utawi in rendering wāw alistiʾnāf followed by a fiʿl or ḥarf. This shift is clearly evident in manuscript PNRI A 97, dating from the last quarter of the 17th century, and becomes more pronounced in Leiden Or. 5675 from the first quarter of the 18th century. The increasing dominance is further observed in Leiden Or. 1842, from the second and third quarters of the 18th century, where the dominance of utawi-for-mubtadaʾ is firmly established. However, even within this pattern, utawi-for-istiʾnāf has not been entirely supplanted. While instances of utawi-for-istiʾnāf become increasingly subtle, a careful reader can still discern their presence. The dominance of utawi-for-mubtadaʾ and the subtle appearance of utawi-for-istiʾnāf continued well into the 19th century (Fig. 8a and 8b). The older form utawi anapun for wa-ammā appears to have persisted, likely because it did not entirely conflict with the utawi-for-mubtadaʾ structure, given that the word following wa-ammā in many instances is a noun functioning as a mubtadaʾ. Fig. 8a An untitled work on Islamic theology, Endangered Archives Programme British Library, EAP061/2/34, fol. 75v. The use of utawi to translate wāw al-istiʾnāf plus ḥarf in a 19th-century manuscript. Muhammad Dluha Luthfillah • 25.3 (2025) IntlinTr: 175–195 Page | 190 Fig. 8b An untitled work on Islamic theology, Endangered Archives Programme British Library, EAP061/2/34, fol. 75v. The use of utawi to translate wāw al-istiʾnāf plus fiʿl in a 19th-century manuscript. These compelling findings lead to several critical questions that require extensive evidence and further contextual understanding to be addressed thoroughly. How should we interpret this shift in usage? Does it represent a change in emphasis, and if so, what were the underlying reasons? What specific factors in the 18th century contributed to this transition? Is this shift the only significant one within this period, or are there other notable transitions to be considered? If other shifts did occur in subsequent periods, what factors might have driven them? Are the factors influencing the shift in utawi usage the same as those influencing other changes? Do these transitions provide insights into a broader historical, intellectual, or cultural transformation, such as the evolving orientation of Javanese Islamic identity? Utawi as a Dating Device? Although these questions remain a mystery and will likely require considerable time before we can provide solid answers, the shift in the use of utawi offers valuable insights for philologists and historians in various ways, one among them being the consideration of manuscripts’ dating. Insights emerging from scholarly exchanges I have had with experts in Islamic manuscript traditions in Java suggest that the better we understand the nature and system of Javanese interlinear translation, the more we are able to approximate the regional provenance and dating of an anonymous and undated manuscript. The evidence presented above suggests a clearer understanding of the function of utawi and in this section, I offer several case studies that demonstrate how utawi can be used as a tool for dating interlinear manuscripts. Not the Utawi You Think You Know • 25.3 (2025) IntlinTr: 175–195 Page | 191 The manuscript in the Leiden collection, coded Or. 7165, presents an intriguing case given the rarity of its interlinear translation. It is a composite manuscript, believed by Voorhoeve to have been written in the 17th century. Characterized by relatively wide spacing and only rare occasional, sporadic interlinear translation, this manuscript poses particular challenges for dating attempts that rely on utawi as an analytical device. Can we hope to date a manuscript that features so few interlinear translations? Let us give it a try. In the instances where interlinear translations do appear, utawi is used multiple times, and interestingly, quite a few instances of utawi translate a wāw al-istiʾnāf followed by a verb or particle. The manuscript never uses utawi to indicate the position of the mubtadaʾ, which serves as an important clue. When placed within the pattern observed in the previous sections, this provides further support for the hypothesis that this manuscript was written in the 17th century. Furthermore, the word translated as utawi is the famous phrase wa-ʿlam (know!), which, in 17th-century manuscripts like PNRI A 45, receives utawi without the need for the wāw al-istiʾnāf. Fig. 9 Al-Miṣbāḥ fī al-Naḥw, Leiden University Library, Or. 7165, a composite text, fol. 11r. The use of utawi to translate wāw al-istiʾnāf followed by the verb iʿlam. In the previous section, I discussed the dating issue of PNRI A 45. The year 1087 AH (1676 AD), mentioned in the manuscript’s colophon, is part of the source text and, therefore, cannot be directly used to establish the date of the interlinear translation. This date should be regarded only as a terminus post quem for the translation’s composition. Nevertheless, within this manuscript, utawi remains predominantly employed to translate wāw al-istiʾnāf. Words functioning as mubtadaʾ that are not preceded by wāw al-istiʾnāf are frequently translated without utawi. Furthermore, the manuscript presents a notable instance where the verb iʿlam is translated with utawi, despite the absence of wāw al-istiʾnāf preceding it. In essence, the use of utawi for wāw al-istiʾnāf holds a dominant position in this text. All of this indicates the characteristic usage of utawi in the 17th century and earlier. Had this manuscript been written in the 18th century or later, one would anticipate a greater prevalence of utawi used to translate the mubtadaʾ. Thus, while the date 1087/1676 cannot serve as the definitive year for the interlinear translation’s composition, the usage of utawi helps to narrow the translation’s period of creation to a window spanning from 1087/1676 to the early 18th century. Muhammad Dluha Luthfillah • 25.3 (2025) IntlinTr: 175–195 Page | 192 Another example is PNRI A 54 and the manuscript from the Great Banten Mosque (Masjid Agung Banten, henceforth MAB 1). Both are Javanese Quran translations from Banten—A 54 was originally housed in the royal palace before being transferred to the Bataviaasch Genootschap (the precursor to the PNRI), while MAB 1, as the name suggests, belongs to the collection of Masjid Agung Banten. They are believed to be complete translations of the Quran, although today we no longer have access to the entire translated text. PNRI A 54 is missing the 15th and 16th juzʾs (parts), while MAB 1 retains only the translation of the last 10 juzʾ (21-30). Both are undated; however, scholars speculate that PNRI A 54 dates from the 18th century, while local oral tradition holds that MAB 1 was written a century earlier. Does the use of utawi support or challenge these chronological assumptions? Fig. 10 Quran with Javanese interlinear translation, The National Library of Indonesia, A 54 a, fol. 5. The use of utawi to translate wāw al-istiʾnāf followed by the ḥarf min. In PNRI A 54, utawi is used to translate words in the position of the mubtadaʾ. However, when this mubtadaʾ is preceded by fa, utawi is replaced by maka or is omitted altogether.30 The same applies to fa-ammā, whereas wa-ammā is always translated as lan anapun instead of utawi anapun. The pronouns huwa (he) and hiya (she) are translated as iya iku and take the addition of lan (and) when preceded by wāw al-istiʾnāf. However, most notably, utawi is still used to translate wāw al-istiʾnāf followed by a ḥarf (Fig. 11).31 This pattern is also found in MAB 1, with the exception of the latter. In MAB 1, I did not find utawi used to translate wāw al-istiʾnāf followed by either ḥarf or fiʿl. In other words, the use of utawi in both manuscripts strengthens the assumption that PNRI A 54 dates from the 18th century, but does not support (and may even weaken) the assumption that MAB 1 originates from the 17th century. The latter may be an exception to the rule or rather date from the late 18th century or later. Certainly, looking at the usage of utawi alone cannot serve as a decisive method for dating a manuscript. However, the key point I wish to make is that a deeper understanding of the 30 For example, the translation of fa-Allāhu khayrun ḥifẓan in Q. 12:64 as maka Allah iku lewih becik pangreksane (then Allah is the one whose surveillance is better) (PNRI A 54c, fol. 5). 31 In the course of my investigation, I have not encountered any instance in this manuscript where utawi is used to translate a wāw al-istiʾnāf followed by a fiʿl. Not the Utawi You Think You Know • 25.3 (2025) IntlinTr: 175–195 Page | 193 characteristics of interlinear translation can offer valuable clues or reinforce hypotheses regarding the dating of a manuscript. If one delves deeper into the various code words used in Javanese interlinear translations, beyond just utawi, much more can be uncovered, far beyond dating. Utawi is a gateway to a rich and beautiful tropical rainforest of knowledge. Conclusion Throughout this article, I have explored the use of the word utawi in early Islamic literature in Java, mostly within interlinear translation texts. In modern usage, utawi is primarily employed to denote a word in the position of the nominal sentence’s subject, the mubtadaʾ. However, when examined diachronically, starting from the earliest available manuscripts— dating back to the 16th century—it becomes apparent that utawi’s role underwent notable change. In the 16th and 17th centuries, utawi primarily served as a translation for the istiʾnāf function of the Arabic particle wāw. Only in a limited number of cases did it signify the mubtadaʾ of a translated phrase. This usage pattern does, however, include exceptions for certain words, such as the pronouns huwa–hiya (he–she) and ordinal numbers like awwal– thānī–thālith (first–second–third). Moreover, the translation of utawi was subject to variation when faced with fa (then). Nonetheless, in this early period, utawi was predominantly employed to translate the istiʾnāf function, rather than serving to indicate the mubtadaʾ. As time went on, the use of utawi to mark the mubtadaʾ became increasingly prominent, while its earlier function as a rendering of wāw al-istiʾnāf gradually receded. This shift is clearly observable in 18th-century manuscripts, where utawi-for-mubtadaʾ gains stability toward century’s end, and instances of utawi-for-istiʾnāf become markedly infrequent. Exceptions to this pattern—such as its use with certain pronouns or after specific particles— also show signs of consolidation, further reinforcing utawi-for-mubtadaʾ as the prevailing norm. Yet, traces of its former function as a marker of istiʾnāf persisted well into the 19th century, and as of writing this study, I have yet to identify the precise point at which that function disappeared altogether. Although much remains to be explored about the historical trajectory of utawi, the patterns that have emerged thus far offer a useful framework for various lines of inquiry, chief among them the dating of manuscripts. As demonstrated in the final section, patterns in utawi usage often align with other manuscript features that can help suggest a likely date of origin. By outlining these findings, I hope to invite readers to reassess and deepen their understanding of the Javanese interlinear translation system, particularly as it appears in manuscripts from the formative period of Javanese Islam (the 16th-18th centuries). Just as utawi— whose partial “life history” I have attempted to trace here—underwent a historical evolution, other elements of the utawi-iku translation system must have followed their own developmental paths. Some may have assumed stable functions from the outset, while others likely experienced gradual yet meaningful transitions, as utawi did. Muhammad Dluha Luthfillah • 25.3 (2025) IntlinTr: 175–195 Page | 194 References Manuscripts Interlinear manuscripts 1. Library of the University of Amsterdam, I F 1, al-Ghāya wa-l-Taqrīb, regional provenance unknown, terminus ante quem 1610. 2. Library of the University of Amsterdam, I H 1, al-Īḍāḥ, regional provenance unknown, terminus ante quem 1610. 3. The British Museum Library, Sloane 2645, al-Muqaddima al-Ḥaḍrāmiyya, regional provenance unknown, colophon bringing the year 1545 AJ (Anno Javanese) = 1623 AD. 4. Leiden University Library, Or. 7165, al-Miṣbāḥ fī al-Naḥw, regional provenance unknown, supposedly from the 17th century. 5. Perpustakaan Nasional Republik Indonesia, A 45, Tuḥfat al-Ṭālib al-Mubtadī, copied in Banten 1087/1676. 6. Perpustakaan Nasional Republik Indonesia, A 97, al-Mawāhib al-Mursala, copied in Banten in 1116/1705. 7. Leiden University Library, Or. 2016, composite manuscript on theology and sufism, copied in 18th-century Banten. 8. Leiden University Library, Or. 5675, Mashraʿ al-Khuṣūṣ ilā Maʿānī al-Nuṣūṣ, copied in Banten in 1142/1729-30. 9. Perpustakaan Nasional Republik Indonesia, A 34, al-Fayḍ al-ʿAhd fī al-ʿIlm bi-ʿUluww alSanad, copied in Banten in 1174/1760-1. 10. Leiden University Library, Or. 1842, composite manuscript containing varying works on sufism, supposedly copied in Banten in the second half of the 18th century. 11. Endangered Archives Programme British Library, EAP061/2/34, untitled work on Islamic theology, copied in Lamongan, East Java, supposedly in the 19th century. Non-interlinear manuscripts in Pegon 1. Leiden University Library, Or. 5716, al-Muntahī, probably from 17th-century Banten. 2. Leiden University Library, Or. 3050, untitled work on Islamic theology and sufism, regional provenance unknown, hypothetically Kudus, Central Java, 17th century. Non-interlinear manuscripts in Javanese script 1. Leiden University Library, Or. 1928, The Admonitions of Seh Bari, 16th century, probably from Tuban, East Java. 2. Cambridge University Library, Erpenius Collection, Gg.5.22, untitled work on Islamic law, regional provenance unknown, 16th century. Studies AZRA, Azyumardi. Jaringan Ulama: Timur Tengah dan Kepulauan Nusantara Abad XVII Dan XVIII: Melacak Akar-Akar Pembaruan Pemikiran Islam Di Indonesia. Mizan, 1994. BASALAMAH, Aly Abubakar. “Memahami Kitab Kuning Melalui Terjemahan Tradisional: Suatu Pendekatan Tradisional Terjemahan Pondok Pesantren.” Al-Jami’ah, no. 55 (1994): 61–69. DANESHGAR, Majid. Reconstructing Erpenius’ Library: The First Collection of Oriental Manuscripts at Cambridge University Library. Brill, 2025. DREWES, G.W.J. Een Javaanse Primbon: Uit De Zestiende Eeuw Opnieuw Uitgegeven En Vertaald. Brill, 1954. Not the Utawi You Think You Know • 25.3 (2025) IntlinTr: 175–195 Page | 195 — . The Admonitions of Seh Bari: A 16th Century Javanese Muslim Text Attributed to the Saint of Bonan Re-Edited and Translated with an Introduction. Springer Netherlands, 1969. — , and L.F. Brakel. The Poems of Hamzah Fansuri. Foris Publication, 1986. DROR, Yehudit. “Is Each Particle in the Qurʾān Translatable? The Case of Wāw al-Istiʾnāf Preceding the Fawāṣil.” Babel 61, no. 1 (2015): 22–42. FLORIDA, Nancy K. Writing the Past, Inscribing the Future. Duke University Press, 1995. GALLOP, Annabel Teh. “Southeast Asian Manuscripts from the Collection of Sir Hans Sloane in the British Library.” Wacana 20, no. 1 (2019): 15–31. GERICKE, Johann F.C., and Taco Roorda. Javaansch-Nederduitsch Woordenboek. Johannes Müller, 1847. — , and Taco Roorda. Javaansch-Nederlandsch Handwoordenboek. Vol. 1. Brill, 1901. JAENI, Muhammad. “Pola-Pola Pengapsahan Kitab Pesantren Kiai Pesisir Utara Jawa Tengah Abad XIX-XX: Kajian Histori-Sosiolinguistik.” Ph.D Dissertation, UIN Walisongo, 2019. JONES, Sidney. “Arabic Instruction and Literacy in Javanese Muslim Schools.” International Journal of Society and Language 42 (1983): 83–94. MAHFUDH, Sahal. “Al-Kitāba al-ʿArabiyya Li-Lughat al-Jāwiyyah (Pegon): Dirāsa Lughawiyya Ijtimāʿiyya ʿalā -Stibqāʾihā Fī Mujtamaʿ al-Besantren al-Taqlīdī Bi-Jāwā.” Ph.D Dissertation, UIN Sunan Kalijaga, 2023. PIGEAUD, Theodore G. Th. Literature of Java. Vol. 2. Martinus Nijhoff, 1968. PROUDFOOT, Ian. Old Muslim Calendars of Southeast Asia. Brill, 2006. RICCI, Ronit. Islam Translated: Literature, Conversion, and the Arabic Cosmopolis of South and Southeast Asia. University of Chicago Press, 2011. RICKLEFS, Merle C. Mystic Synthesis in Java: A History of Islamization from the Fourteenth to the Early Nineteenth Centuries. East Bridge, 2006. — . The Seen and Unseen Worlds in Java, 1726-1749: History, Literature and Islam in the Court of Pakubuwana II. University of Hawai‘i Press, 1998. SADAN, Arik. The Subjunctive Mood in Arabic Grammatical Thought. Brill, 2012. SĪBAWAYH. Al-Kitāb. Vol. 1. Maktaba al-Khānjī, 1988. SUGAHARA, Yumi. “Sunan Bonang’s Teaching: Ethical Sufism in Sixteenth-Century Java.” In Storied Island: New Explorations in Javanese Literature, edited by Ronit Ricci. Brill, 2023. UMAM, Saiful. “Localizing Islamic Orthodoxy in Northern Coastal Java in the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries; A Study of Pegon Islamic Texts.” PhD Dissertation, University of Hawai’i, 2011. VOORHOEVE, Paul. Handlist of Arabic Manuscripts in the Library of the University of Leiden and Other Collections in the Netherlands. Leiden University Press, 1980. WIJNMAN, Hendrik Frederik. “De Hebraïcus Jan Theunisz Barbarossius Alias Johannes Antonides Als Lector in Het Arabisch Aan de Leidse Universiteit (1612/1613). Een Hoofdstuk Amsterdamse Geleerdengeschiedenis.” Studia Rosenthaliana 2, no. 2 (1968): 1–29. WITKAM, Jan Just. Inventory of the Oriental Manuscripts of the Library of the University of Leiden. Vol. 6. Ter Lugt Press, 2007. © Muhammad Dluha Luthfillah, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, IL ◄ dluha[email protected] ►