Page 52 - Hikayat-Patani-The-Story-Of-Patani 1

THE HIKAYAT PATANI AND RELATED TEXTS 43

to me and my brothers”, although no brothers of Raja Bambang are
mentioned. Apparently saudaraku in the Malay text has been taken
to mean “my brothers” instead of referring to the king himself, and
it seems as if “the rulership” comes from the Malay perintah in the
next sentence, which is actually spoken by Raja cA’isyah. The rest
of this sentence is left out in T.
3. In T 39 there are apparently some differences between T and the
Malay besides the one pointed out above. As this passage is difficult
and probably corrupt in both A and B, it hardly admits of conclusions
with regard to the relationship between the three texts. It is obvious,
though, that there again T is closer to B than to A. For more details
on this passage see below.

The above cases tend to confirm the conclusion reached earlier on the
basis of a general comparison of the Malay texts and T, namely that the
Thai translator must have worked from a Malay text which was largely
similar to B, and that he has generally understood the Malay text quite
well. Only very few differences can be found which can be proven to be
due to his misunderstanding the Malay text. And in these cases the
Malay text from which he worked may even have been itself corrupt.
There are, however, also a number of details where the difference may
be explained either by the fact that the Malay text on which T is based
Was different from A or by a conscious change in or addition to the
Malay model. The most characteristic points are mentioned below:

1. A minor, quite logical addition to the Thai text is found in T 9,
where the translator has the king swear “by this image of the Lord
Buddha”. The Malay author restricts himself to “by the idol(s)
which I worship”.
2. An addition which cannot possibly be explained from the Malay
text is found in T 13: “Some say that they cut off their heads for
burial, while others say that they were not cut but were buried
lengthwise”. This, however, looks very much like the interpolation
of a Malay copyist, so that it may have been present in T’s Malay
original, thus constituting a difference between the two Malay texts.
3. The same explanation seems plausible for a minor addition in T 15,
where the words “directly where the surau is today” find no parallel
in A, whereas B has “in front of the main gate”.
4. More complex is the question as to what may or may not have