Keris and Rembrandt
 

Look at the blade in Samson's eye.
I find this reference to a keris fascinating. It's probably the earliest depiction of this weapon, but I could be wrong, of course.
No doubt it was brought to Holland by a Dutch East India Company employee from Java, or some such place. Artists always have all kinds of stuff laying around for props...

Hello Dmitry,

Check out this thread :http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ight=rembrandt

Best regards,
Willem

Hello!

Story of my life - a day too late, a dollar too short. :)

Still, fascinating stuff.

Yes, very interesting that he used all kinds of exotic weapons in his paintings.

Maybe somebody still has to add something ?
Or maybe someone knows other painters that depicted exotics arms and armour. (Rubens ? )

Buta Hilt Keris
 

It seems a nine (9) luks keris. Kidang Soka? Sempana? Or seven (7) luks keris. Carubuk? One luk had already inside Samsom's eye... But it seems quite clear that the hilt used was Cirebonese "buta hilt". Look at the hand position of the buta... (pls zoom in)

GANJAWULUNG

I have not seen the original of this painting, in fact, I have not even seen a good quality print of it.

All I have seen is the image in front of me on my computer screen.

I've Photoshopped that image through several magnifications and all I can see is a nondescript lump protruding from the mailed hand, and a very small section of flamboyant blade.

Based upon what I can see I would describe this dagger as simply one with a flamboyant blade.

I cannot see a keris anywhere.

I know the original painting. It is in fact a keris, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to describe it in detail. Rembrandt was a collector of ethnographica, and he certainly painted a piece he owned himself.

Thank you for this clarification, Stekemest.

So, in the original, it is possible to see the ganja and the assymetric base of the blade?

Very probably I see there just what I used to see all the time I know this picture.

I thought, it were possible to see a difference between sirah cecak and buntut cecak, also a big pejetan (and wavy gonjo).

Yes. This part is quite dark though, and it is hard to see all the details. I can try to get a better picture of this part.
The painting can be seen in the Städel Museum in Frankfurt. If anyone intends to go there, send me a message. :)

Here

Yes, i think this is clearly a keris and i hope that from the enlargements made you see this as well Alan. From the look of what i can see of the hilt i think it's a fair bet that it is the same keris Rembrandt depicts in this painting. From what i know he owned a couple of examples which he used as models for his paintings.

Here is another Rembrandt, a self-portrait, which is most commonly titles "Self-Portrait as an Oriental Pontentate With A Kris". Here we see an asymmetric blade and a rather vague Kacang Kembang, but the blade itself is a very unusal one and i have a feeling that some artistic license was taken here to create a fanasty keris based upon examples he had or had seen. :shrug:

Okay, this begs the question ;

In the blinding of Sampson what does the use of a keris represent ?

In what light was the keris viewed by European culture in that time ?

Good question Rick. It is, after all, the blade that does the "evil" deed of blinding him.
I don't know if this will look any clearer, but i found this better than average version for clarity and blew it up as much as i dared. I am sure that the original color is off, but hopefully it will clearly show this to be a keris.

BANTEN sheath?
 

Was the sheath Banten "sandang walikat"? If yes, then Cirebonese "buta hilt" would match with Bantenese walikat.... Just guessing. For comparison, (picture) is Bantenese warangka but not sandang walikat. Banten warangka, could seem as if symetrical, although the blade inside doesn't need to be symetrical.

Just one cent opinion...

GANJAWULUNG

Probably the art keris was used was evident very early to the europeans - there is a report of a man named Henry Middleton from 1605, where a javanese sailor stabs to death with a "cryse" a dutch official, an eye-witness and another javanese, which resembles later reports about running amok or amuk.

I guess, becouse such situations, very quick and probably unexpected use of keris is beying connected with the fierce character of the javanese and bugis (Careri in 1695 says, orang laut draw their "crisis" out of the sheaths for the slightest reason), and has become also character associated with keris.

There is also one european epigraph on a sheath of a keris from Dresden collection, 17.cent., which says: "...brings fortune or misfortune". So some of the "keris mythology" were probably also evident to the europeans.

Interesting are the mentions of figural keris hilts, as depictions of devil (Levinium Hulsius, 1606).

The sheath on the picture is not sandang walikat (nobody has said that), but an old (probably broken) ladrang form, seen also in old european collections. It is very close to the Banten wrongko you posted, all preserved examples are Gandar Iras.

Here is a picture of his "Kunstcaemer"

At this moment I have no Idea if the items on display are genuinely from rembrandts time...

Hmmm....well i do see a keris on the wall in the middle next to a bust. It would be cool if this stuff actually was his personal affects. :)

Two days before Rembrandt's death he was visited by genealogist Pieter van Brederode, who has made a record of antiquities and curiosa in his collection. So, despite his very bad financial situation, Rembrandt should have possessed (after many auctions he was forced to make) some objects till death.

There surely will be some information in museum about his estate. The diaries of Pieter van Brederode are also published, 2006. But I think, it's nearly impossible there would be some original objects from Rembrandt's household or collections.

This is alike to failing to see a forest because the trees got in the way.

I can see that keris clearly and in detail now.

Last night I looked again and again and focussed intently on the hand.

I did not see that the mailed hand was grasping the blade, I sub-consciously had that hand gripping the hilt.

Helps to look at things when you haven't just finished 12 hours in front of a computer screen.

Examining the "Rembrandt's Keris" in his painting of "The Blinding Samson" (1636), of course is not like examining a Banten keris in Jensen's Krisdisk -- for instance. Or like watching this "blade-gripping a seven luks Carubuk" like this too (picture). So, IMHO, it is not important -- whether Rembrandt was painting a Carubuk or Banten keris in his "Blinding Samson", or a Kidang Soka in Maduran walikat sheath.

This was "Rembrandt's Keris", of course. No matter what dapur it was. It was his expression at a certain mood in a certain time in the past. Why gripping the keris not in the keris' hilt, this was of course his liberty in expressing certain idea. For me, it is more interesting to look back at the biography of this one greatest painter in Europe.

Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn (you may browse anywhere) -- (July 16, 1606 until October 4, 1669) was living in the period of the golden era of the famous multi-national corporation VOC (Vereenigde Nederlandsche g'octroyeerde Oost-Indische Compagnie). No wonder, if he owned some "Indonesian thing" in his life. Many building, and even the city of Batavia (Jakarta now) was built during this VOC period. (The National Museum of Jakarta still exists, until now).

In the journey of his life in painting -- The Blinding Samson was expressed in his "Amsterdam Period" (1632-1636) where he used more biblical and mythological theme in his paintings.. But in dramatical way.

So, not important whether this "keris like object" was a Carubuk, Kidang Soka or whatever dhapur. It was "Rembrandt's keris".... It is a painting. Not a photograph.

GANJAWULUNG

Yes, it is a painting; famous one .

Still, what does the use of a keris represent in this classic 16?C painting .
Is it allegorical ?

Why should Sampson be blinded by a keris as the chosen weapon ??

Makes perfect sense to me Alan. Because your mind wasn't connecting to the fact that the hand is holding the blade in a completely unpractical manner you just weren't seeing it correctly.
Ganja, yes, in many ways this is "Rembrandt's Keris", but it is most certainly modeled after a keris he actually held in his possession. As such it is as much a "real" item that can be identified as is a photograph, that is a 2 dimensional depictions of an actual 3 dimensional object.
Rick, i think perhaps Rembrandt chose to use various exotic arms simply because they were exotic. We might be thinking too deeply if we are searching for a allegory here. :shrug: :)

Agreed with David. I think it's a case of a cigar just being a cigar. Rembrandt was an enthnographic arms collector and included various ethnographic arms in his paintings.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...grittePipe.jpg
:)

edited:

(translation:"this is not a pipe.". this is also not a kris. this isn't a keris either.)

C'est un kris?

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s...ckew/keris.jpg
this is not a keris, it is an image of a keris

p.s. - this is not a kris either. this is an image of a kris. :)
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s...ris003_DCE.jpg

of course, in classical thaumaturgy the image IS the object, it's the sympathetic magical law of similarity.....

Kronckew in your most recent post you have made the most beautiful and most accurate statement I think I have ever seen in this discussion group:-

this is not a keris, it is an image of a keris


I thank you most sincerely for reminding us that when we look at an image on a computer screen, no matter how expertly that image has been prepared, it is still not the real thing, it is only something that acts upon our mind to conjure our own understanding of the real thing.