Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Gustav · 1st May 2010, 01:30 PM

Laowang, thank you very much for your well researched input here.

You wrote:

I do not mean to dismiss Jensen's reading out of hand. However, his reliance on a Christian allegorical interpretation, with the keris as a satanic emblem, is in contradiction with much of the established scholarship on Rembrandt.[/QUOTE]

This is a circle, becouse oncemore recalls the question of Rick from the post #14: In what light was the keris viewed in the european culture of that time?

I tryed to answer on this in my post #17.

To this, after reading Jensen (post # 34), I can only add:

I don't know, from which time on the europeans (and the javanese) started to see a snake in the blade.
The image of snake in european iconography has an absolutely clear connotation, in all times after the majority of europeans become christians.

I don't know, from which point the europeans started to believe the blade is poisoned (which probably is connected with the view on the blade as snake).

There are few kerisses in early european collections having balu mekabun hilts, even fewer having early planar forms; the absolute majority have yaksha/rakshasa hilts, which are demonic depictions not only in european eyes. There are two passages in Levinium Hulsius (1606), where the keris hilts are mentioned as depictions of devil.

What is Jensen's point, and seems an interesting interpretation (a speculative of course), is that Samson is beeing blinded by his own weapon.
This view on the nature of keris also seems (my individual speculation) to be appearing in the 17. cent. inscription on a keris sheath "...brings fortune or misfortune".

Jensen:

It symbolizes that Samson wears a
seductive and treacherous weapon in his belt - a weapons which turns against himself and literally blinds
him, like he was blind to the seductive treason of Delilah.[/QUOTE]

Your source and your statement:

The keris appears to be the same in both paintings, and ties together two paintings painted eight years apart. One could certainly read it as a comment on Samson being undone by his own lust; Schama clearly believes that, and even in its original cultural milieu the keris is a phallic emblem.

These are two views on this subject. I don't think they are much opposite. They are as much opposite as the views of two sources are.

1st May 2010, 01:30 PM	#39
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,274	Laowang, thank you very much for your well researched input here. You wrote: I do not mean to dismiss Jensen's reading out of hand. However, his reliance on a Christian allegorical interpretation, with the keris as a satanic emblem, is in contradiction with much of the established scholarship on Rembrandt.[/QUOTE] This is a circle, becouse oncemore recalls the question of Rick from the post #14: In what light was the keris viewed in the european culture of that time? I tryed to answer on this in my post #17. To this, after reading Jensen (post # 34), I can only add: I don't know, from which time on the europeans (and the javanese) started to see a snake in the blade. The image of snake in european iconography has an absolutely clear connotation, in all times after the majority of europeans become christians. I don't know, from which point the europeans started to believe the blade is poisoned (which probably is connected with the view on the blade as snake). There are few kerisses in early european collections having balu mekabun hilts, even fewer having early planar forms; the absolute majority have yaksha/rakshasa hilts, which are demonic depictions not only in european eyes. There are two passages in Levinium Hulsius (1606), where the keris hilts are mentioned as depictions of devil. What is Jensen's point, and seems an interesting interpretation (a speculative of course), is that Samson is beeing blinded by his own weapon. This view on the nature of keris also seems (my individual speculation) to be appearing in the 17. cent. inscription on a keris sheath "...brings fortune or misfortune". Jensen: It symbolizes that Samson wears a seductive and treacherous weapon in his belt - a weapons which turns against himself and literally blinds him, like he was blind to the seductive treason of Delilah.[/QUOTE] Your source and your statement: The keris appears to be the same in both paintings, and ties together two paintings painted eight years apart. One could certainly read it as a comment on Samson being undone by his own lust; Schama clearly believes that, and even in its original cultural milieu the keris is a phallic emblem. These are two views on this subject. I don't think they are much opposite. They are as much opposite as the views of two sources are. Last edited by Gustav; 1st May 2010 at 04:46 PM.