Popular Posts

Friday, 29 November 2019

Harimau Jadian Melaka


Gambar hiasan

Menurut Eredia (1613), penduduk Portugis Melaka mengalami masalah keselamatan setelah menjajah Melaka. Selain dari serangan balas orang-orang Melayu dan orang asli (dipanggil 'Orang Benua'), penduduk kota Melaka sentiasa diserang harimau. Menurut catatan Portugis "arymos" iaitu harimau tersebut dipercayai harimau jadian.

Dikatakan Eredia bahawa Orang Benua mengamalkan ilmu sihir dan boleh bertukar menjadi harimau, biawak, buaya, burung dan ikan dengan meminum air herba dipanggil "vilca" untuk berhubung dengan "Diabo" (syaitan) atau "Putry Gunoledam" (Puteri Gunung Ledang).

Ancaman harimau jadian terhadap penduduk Portugis Melaka amat serius sehingga uskup Melaka yang pertama iaitu Dom Jorge de Santa Luzia (1558-1578) terpaksa membuat upacara khas di gereja dan mengisytihar pengamal ilmu sihir tersebut sebagai ancaman  awam dan dengan itu diharamkan dan ditentang pihak gereja Katolik melalui pengisytiharan yang dipanggil 'excommunication'.

Tidak dicatatkan Eredia apa yang dilakukan kepada pengamal sihir yang ditangkap. Tapi saya percaya ianya sama dengan hukuman terhadap pengamal sihir zaman pertengahan di Eropah iaitu dengan membakar mereka hidup-hidup berpandukan tatacara 'Malleus Maleficarum' (Hammer of Witches) yang ditulis Heinrich Kramer atau Henricus Institoris pada 1487.


'Malleus Maleficarum' (Hammer of Witches) yang ditulis Heinrich Kramer atau Henricus Institoris pada 1487.


Kejayaan penghapusan harimau jadian oleh uskup Dom Jorge de Santa Luzia ini dikatakan oleh Eredia sebagai punca ramai orang Chelia Melaka, yang sebelum itu menyembah berhala, membuat keputusan menganuti Agama Katolik pada tahun 1560.

Sumber:

"Eredia's Description of Malacca, Meridional India, and Cathay Translated from the Portuguese, with Notes", by JV Mills, JMBRAS, Vol VIII, 1930.


Thursday, 28 November 2019

Strange Case of a Malay Student in 18th Century London

I visited the Hunterian Museum when I was studying in London sometime in 1995. At that time it was compulsory for me to attend 12 dining sessions at Lincoln's Inn in order to qualify as a Barrister. Established in 1310, The Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn is one of the four Inns of Court in London where Barristers of England and Wales belong, where they are called to the Bar, and get their names recorded in the Society’s “black books” of which records goes back to 1422. The Hunterian Museum is located in the building of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, just stone throw away from Lincoln’s Inn Great Hall. See a photograph taken outside the Lincoln's Inn Great Hall right after my Call Day ceremony in July 1996 (Picture 1).

Picture 1 : (L-R) Yusrin Faidz Yusoff, Dr Yaacob Hussain Merican, Megat Suffian Merican, Mustaffa & Abu Bakar 

At the museum, there was this 230 year-old oil painting titled ‘Portrait of a Malay Woman’ by Robert Home (1752-1834) (Picture 2). It is unsigned, the identity of the sitter is unclear, and the exact date of completion is only an estimate of between 1770 to 1788. Based on official records, this painting was owned by an army surgeon named John Hunter (1728-1793), whose works and new ideas led him to be remembered as the founder of 'scientific surgery'.

Picture 2 : 'Portrait of a Malay Woman' by Robert Home, c.1770-1788


In 1771, Hunter married poet Anne Home, and became a brother-in-law of the artist, Robert Home. There are 2 known portraits of Hunter by Robert Home. (See portraits of Hunter c. 1770 i.e. Picture 3 & 4).

Picture 3 : John Hunter by Robert Home

Picture 4 : John Hunter by Robert Home

In 1799, 6 years after his death, the British government purchased Hunter's collection which consisted of a motley assortment of cuttings and anatomical specimens, as well as paintings of famous patients, animals and human freaks. His estate received £15,000 for it which is equivalent to £1.6 million at the current rate of inflation.

Hunter's collection, his house-cum-laboratory, his erratic behaviour, and his act self-experimentation became the inspiration for Robert Louis Stevenson's 1886 novel 'The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'. See the layout plan of Hunter's residence at Leicester Square (Picture 5).

Picture 5 : Layout of John Hunter's Residence
Source: British Library.

Hunter’s entire collection at Leicester Square was presented to the Royal College of Surgeons of England and formed the basis of the Hunterian Collection at the Hunterian Museum, situated at 35-43 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London. See photograph of the painting in question amongst other exhibits:

Picture 6 : Paintings on display at Hunterian Museum, Lincoln's Inn Fields, London (currently closed for renovation until 2021).

I find this “Portrait of a Malay Woman” intriguing as it is claimed by Hunter's former assistant (and later museum curator), William Clift, that the unnamed Malay woman was sent to England for education around 1770 and died of psoas abscess. Clift also claimed that he was informed by one of Hunter's pupil that the Malay woman was a patient of Hunter. To me there is an air of mystery behind this claim. As far as I know, the first Malay student in England, Abdul Rahman Andak (sent by Maharaja Abu Bakar to accompany his nephew Ungku Othman), did not set his foot there until 1870, exactly 100 years later. I further elaborate my contrarian observation as follows:-

a) there is no account of this Malay patient by Hunter himself. Had she died of psoas abscess in the care of Hunter, such event would have been fully documented. Her body would have also been subjected to a post mortem. It is recorded that Hunter was involved with grave robbers to secure cadavers for his experiments (see The ‘Irish Giant’ who found fame exhibiting himself in London), and even did post mortems on a number of his friends, apparently without any trace of sentiment;

b) there is a conflicting account by Hunter in that the painting was copied from another copy held by Everard Home (Robert Home's younger brother who was also Hunter’s pupil) wherein the original painting “belonged to some other Person - I think Dr. Fleming who had many other drawings made in India by Robert Home". This shows that Hunter himself was unsure as to the exact origin of the painting;

c) unlike Home's other paintings, there is a shroud of secrecy over the record of this particular painting in terms of the identity of the sitter and the person who commissioned it. This is contrary to Home’s known habit of maintaining detailed records of his works;

d) the period of 18 years (between 1770 to 1788) is too long a gap, and perhaps intentionally chosen to lend credence to the proposition that it was painted while Home was still in London (Home left permanently for India around 1788–1789);

e) British schools and universities never appealed to the Malay ruling elites until the British got officially involved with Malay politics and administration around the end of the 19th century;

f) The first Ladies' college in the UK did not open its doors until 1853. Women were not allowed to study at British universities until 1878. By the end of the 19th century most girls from the British working class finished formal schooling at 11;

g) from her appearance and especially her nose, I'd say that she's a Eurasian. The mirror in the painting was intentionally put at an angle to profile her sharp nose;

h) this 'Malay Woman' in Home’s painting looks similar to Martina Rozells as depicted in her portrait below:

Picture 7 : Martina Rozells?

Edit: The portrait from this blog (Martina Rozells) is known as "Portrait of a young Eurasian lady" by George Cinnery. There is no written record that it is a portrait of Martina Rozells save as to claims by her descendants in an ancestry website. See: Tong Di. Arguably, it may not be Martina as George Cinnery moved to India only in 1802, and later relocated to Macau in 1825.

i) I would also argue that the events overlap geographically and chronologically allowing for the possibility that the ‘Malay woman’ in Home’s painting was actually Martina Rozells.


Who's Martina Rozells?

Martina Rozells (1757–1814) was the common-law wife of Captain Francis Light (1740–1794), the founder of modern Penang. (Picture 8 & 9). She bore him five children, one of whom later became the founder of Adelaide in Australia.

Picture 8 : Engraving of the official ceremony to christen the new settlement, Prince of Wales island c. 1786; probably the only surviving image of Captain Francis Light (fifth from right). Source: Elisha Trapaud, 1788.

Picture 9 : Captain Francis Light.


John Crawfurd, who came to Penang in 1805 described Martina as “a mestizo Portuguese of Siam”. She was said to be of Catholic faith, and of Eurasian descent (a Portuguese-Siam parentage). This first ‘First Lady of Penang’ spoke Thai, Malay and English. According to Captain Elisha Trapaud (1788), Martina was a princess to the 19th Sultan of Kedah, Sultan Muhammad Jiwa Zainal Adilin Muazzam Shah II (1710-1777), and that the entire island of Penang was presented to her (and her husband) by the Sultan as her dowry. Along with this story is the notion that Light and Martina were actually married according to local customs; but they were not recognised by the British East India Company (EIC) on the account of Martina being a Eurasian and a Catholic.

Some said that she was a Thai princess and that Light had met Martina in Ujong Salang / Junk Ceylon (now Phuket) sometime in 1770 because it was his base for over a decade after he failed to convince EIC of the importance of opening up Penang. Over the years many romantic legends have been constructed about Martina, and the truth may never be fully known. But one thing is for certain in that this painting by Home speaks volume on what was actually claimed by Martina herself. The fact that she wanted to be known as a Malay ( Yawi or Melayu Siam ), and made sure that she is depicted as a princess from the east.

Apart from this portrait, Home also painted portraits of important EIC figures such as Lord Cornwallis, Richard Wellesley, and William Fairlie. They were all related in terms of timeline and the history of British India and the East Indies; and in particular to the founding of Penang.

Based on Home's rate, Light would have paid him around £200 to £400 for this 92 x 75 cm portrait (around £30,000 to £60,000 at the current rate of inflation). Based on the available facts, I would say that the sitting would have been conducted at his studio in Calcutta around 1790 when Martina was around 33 years old.

Upon completion, the original painting would have been kept at Suffolk Estate in Penang i.e. the residence of Light and Martina. Although Home's painting of Martina was not specifically mentioned in Light's detailed will, it would formed part of his residuary estate or perhaps legally considered as a gift prior to the will and therefore personally belongs to Martina.

It is recorded that in 1795, Light's business partner, William Fairlie commissioned Home to paint a portrait of himself, perhaps inspired by the quality of Home’s work with Martina’s earlier sitting. Three copies of his portrait were subsequently commissioned by Fairlie. In 1802, Fairlie commissioned Home to paint his family portrait (see Picture 10). From Home’s records, Fairlie paid 3,000 rupees for it via two separate instalments. It is said that this painting became one of Home’s most ambitious and successful works.

Picture 10 : William Farlie & Family

Fairlie’s wealth multiplied exponentially after Light’s death in 1794. He began his agency in Calcutta where a ‘Fairlie Place’ was first recorded in 1794. In the early 19th century Fairlie’s agency house was the largest shipowner in Calcutta, and transported rice, indigo and cotton, as well as carrying opium to the China coast. The ship ‘Fairlie’, was built on the Hooghly River in 1811-12, and subsequently carried emigrants to Australia for many years. The larger ship ‘William Fairlie’ traded regularly between London and Canton for EIC between 1821 and 1832. See the 1828 painting of the ship ‘William Fairlie’ (Picture 11).

Picture 11 : E.I.Co.’s Ship William Fairlie Leaving Prince of Wales’s Island, 1828.
Source: Penang State Museum.

From historical records, Fairlie was one of the executors of Light's will who, together with another partner, James Scott, were said to have cheated Martina out of her inheritance. In 1805, Light’s Suffolk Estate and Strawberry Hill were sold by Fairlie and Scott to William Edward Phillips, another official of EIC who later became Penang's Governor. It is unknown as to the fate of Home’s original portrait of Martina.

Martina sued Fairlie and Scott for breach of trust and misappropriation. She initially won the case, but in the executors’ subsequent appeal, lost control over Light’s estate. The rumour was that to keep her quiet, Martina received a pension from EIC.

Further to this ‘bribe’, I believe that Fairlie may have exercised his influence over Home to erase all records of Martina’s sitting, including the identity of the person who commissioned it, as well as the payment records. With the help of Home’s younger brother, Everard Home (1756–1832), who was a pupil and later the executor of Hunter’s estates, the painting was shipped to London, and hidden from the art world amongst Hunter’s anatomical exhibits and paintings of deformed and famous patients.

I believe that Everard Home, who subsequently became keeper and trustee of Hunterian Museum, had assisted Fairlie to create and maintain false records in order to hide the actual identity of the sitter and owner of the painting. Everard Home in particular was reported to have plagiarized Hunter's work. He also have been said to systematically destroyed Hunter's papers in order to hide evidence of this plagiarism. I believe that the same have been done to Martina’s portrait in order to claim that it formed part of Hunter’s painting of his patients. I also believe that the “Portrait of a Malay Woman”, currently exhibited at the Hunterian Museum, is the original portrait of Martina Rozells as commissioned by her husband Captain Francis Light and certainly not “a copy of a copy”.


Note: This article is based on my answer to a question posed in Quora. Link: Who Posed for Robert Home's 'Portrait of a Malay Woman'? 10 December 2018.




Wednesday, 27 November 2019

Tentera Melayu Abad Ke-19

Catatan Inggeris dalam 'The Illustrated London News' keluaran 26.2.1876 ini menunjukkan jenis-jenis senjata yang digunakan oleh orang-orang Melayu yang menentang Inggeris semasa Perang Inggeris-Perak (1875-1876). Apa yang akhbar Inggeris ini ingin sorok dari pembacanya adalah fakta bahawa tentera Melayu ketika itu adalah tentera terlatih yang mempunyai senjatapi seperti rifal dan musket.







Akhbar propaganda Inggeris ini tidak menjelaskan perkara sebenar iaitu tentera Melayu dengan kekuatan 800 orang telah bertempur dengan 2,000 orang tentera Inggeris dari Pulau Pinang, India dan Hong Kong. Malah serangan pertama oleh pihak Inggeris berjaya digagalkan oleh tentera Melayu dan menyebabkan Kapten Innes dan beberapa orang tentera Inggeris dari rejimen ke-10 terbunuh.

Setelah beberapa kali serangan ke atas kubu Pasir Salak gagal akhirnya tentera Inggeris berjaya mengalahkan tentera Melayu yang bertahan di kubu tersebut pada 12.12.1875. Kubu Pasir Salak, masjid dan beberapa kampung sekitar kubu tersebut dibakar oleh tentera Inggeris melalui arahan William Jervois. Datuk Maharaja Lela dan pengikutnya berundur ke Sayong. Lihat video:


Sekiranya kita amati definasi istilah subjektif "tentera moden", ianya merangkumi persenjataan era moden dan juga suatu organisasi ketenteraan yang terlatih (organized modern military). Jadi sekiranya diaplikasikan definasi tersebut saya berpendapat bahawa Negeri-Negeri Tanah Melayu sudah mempunyai "tentera moden" sekitar pertengahan abad ke-19. Malah tentera moden terlatih telah wujud dalam pergolakan yang lebih awal dari Perang Inggeris-Perak iaitu dalam perang saudara Terengganu (1831-1839), perang saudara Kelantan (1835), perang saudara Pahang (1857-1863), dan perang saudara Selangor (1867-1874).

Persenjataan dan kelengkapan tentera Negeri-Negeri Tanah Melayu adalah bukan seperti perubahan drastik era Tokugawa kepada era Meiji di Jepun iaitu dari pedang dan panah terus naiktaraf ke senjata moden. Juga perlu diketengahkan bahawa pertahanan dan ketenteraan moden Negeri-Negeri di Tanah Melayu bukannya bermula dengan penubuhan Johor Military Force (JMF) pada tahun 1885 dengan 60 orang laskar Melayu, atau Pasukan Askar Melayu DiRaja pada tahun 1933 dengan 25 orang laskar Melayu. Kedua-dua pasukan tentera ini mendapat persetujuan dan kebenaran Inggeris dan dengan itu diiktiraf umum sebagai asal usul sejarah ketenteraan moden Tanah Melayu.

Seperti yang kita maklum, selain dari JMF, perkhidmatan ketenteraan dan kelengkapan senjata Negeri-Negeri Tanah Melayu dibawah Sultan-Sultannya telah dibubarkan selepas mereka dipaksa untuk menerima Sistem Residen. Ketika itu elemen penjajahan sebenar dapat dilihat apabila kuasa mutlak Raja-Raja Melayu telah dihadkan kepada isu Agama Islam dan adat istiadat Melayu sahaja.

Dengan itu, sejarah ketenteraan dan persenjataan moden Negeri-Negeri Tanah Melayu tidak seharusnya dilihat dari pengiktirafan dan kacamata Inggeris sahaja. Ianya juga perlu dilihat dari aspek kewujudan barisan pertahanan dan persenjataan yang disediakan oleh Sultan yang memerintah setiap negeri. Apa yang pasti adalah ianya sudah lama wujud iaitu sebelum kedatangan Inggeris lagi.

Rujukan:

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perak_War

2. http://www.kaiserscross.com/304501/471964.html

3. 'Weapons used by the Malays of Perak', Illustration for The Illustrated London News, 26 February 1876.


Ekspedisi Wilkes (1838-1842)

Kapal USS Vincennes, yang memuatkan 190 anak kapal dan merupakan kapal utama Ekspedisi Wilkes. Singapura adalah destinasi terakhir yang dila...