Page 62 - Hikayat-Patani-The-Story-Of-Patani 1

STRUCTURE, AUTHORS AND DATE 53

thing which strikes us is that B ends at the end of part I. This is not in
itself proof that originally the HP ended at that point. The man who
copied MS. B on behalf of Skeat, or any of his predecessors, might have
broken off a text at a certain point for any number of reasons, and this
was certainly a most convenient point. On the other hand, if other facts
should tend to suggest that what follows after part I did not originally
belong to the same text as part I, then B’s leaving off at that particular
point would be an additional argument.
In fact, a number of arguments can be adduced to support the theory
that originally the Hikayat Patani consisted only of our part I. For one
thing, there is not a very clear link between the end of part I and the
beginning of part II. Part I tells us that after her death Raja Kuning
was called Marhum Besar. Then it says that after her death the ministers
of Patani met to discuss her succession, as this event brought to an end
the dynasty which came from the interior. Details on its origin are
provided in retrospect, as it were. Then the text seems to start anew,
telling us that Raja Bakal was installed, but omitting to say whether this
was the result of the consultations between the ministers.
Much more important than this minor point of the somewhat loose
connection between parts I and II, however, is the difference in style
and character between these two parts. Part I can be characterized
briefly as the anecdotal story of Patani; it contains historical facts, names
and events, many of them historically reliable at that, but these occur
so to speak between the anecdotes or stories. The full emphasis falls on
these stories, which tend to demonstrate the greatness of Patani, the
superiority of its kings, man’s moral and intellectual shortcomings and
the limitations of human power. It is a highly stylized and formalized
text, leaving out lots of facts, people and events in order to drive home,
by means of carefully selected and subtly told stories, the points which
the author considers relevant. It is literature in that sense — it consists
of fiction as much as history. In contrast with this — though perhaps
not a conscious contrast — part II abounds with facts and names, which
certainly make the reader a better informed, though hardly a wiser man.
The very mass of facts itself has the effect of confusing the reader rather
than instructing him. No anecdotes or stories of the type which is so
characteristic of and dominant in part I are to be found in part II.
Only at one point does the author of part II give something over and
above plain facts — the story about the realm and the death of Alung
Yunus shows emotional involvement on his part, in what he says both
about the sultan and about his elder brother Alung Tarab. This passage