Page 49 - Hikayat-Patani-The-Story-Of-Patani 1

40 HIKAYAT PATANI

errors or conscious adaptations on the part of the Thai translator (see
below).
(b) The major differences which also occur between the two texts
do not seem to be accidental; they are due to conscious adaptation and
abbreviation by the author of T of a Malay text which was very close
to the one at our disposal. The principles which guided him in the
translation and adaptation of A seem to have been the following:

1. To translate as accurately and as completely as possible the inform­
ation contained in the Malay text on the early history of Patani, on
the genealogical particulars of the successive rulers of Patani and
on their internal government and policy. The most remarkable gap
in T in this respect is the absence of the three rulers who according
to A interrupted the rule of Baginda (A 75—76). Were they absent
in T’s Malay model, is their story an interpolation in A, or had the
translator reason to suppress these rulers?
2. To give only brief summaries of stories dealing with court intrigues
in Patani, including the story of the Palembang attack.
3. To treat with the utmost reserve the relationship between Patani and
Siam. Any details concerning the king of Siam, his officials or his
army which might be considered unpleasant for the Siamese court
have been suppressed, or at least weakened: the story of the failure
of the Thai attack on Patani is given in only a very summary and
neutral form. The story of Phaya Deca and Raja Kuning is also
stripped of details which might be considered as putting Siam to
shame — the mention of Phaya Deca in T 36, however, may be a
remnant of the more humiliating story in A.
4. The relations between Patani and Sai, and between Patani and
Johore are virtually ignored in T, or at any rate reduced to one line
of matter-of-fact statements, whereas in the Malay text they take up
considerable space and are related with great relish. Apparently the
Thai translator did not think these stories fit for recording, either
because he considered them irrelevant for Thai historiography or
perhaps because he did not think it wise to recall periods in the
history of Patani which were so intimately bound up with the Malay
world.

Comparison on a number of details may be helpful in further elucid­
ating the relationship between T and the Malay texts. First of all, a