TEXTS AND MANUSCRIPTS:
DESCRIPTION AND RESEARCH
EDITION OF MALAY MANUSCRIPTS:
DIPLOMATIC OR CRITICAL?
Abstract. The article raises the question of choosing the type of edition most suitable for Malay manuscript texts' publishing.
The author speaks of her own experience as editor and translator of traditional Malay texts and offers a comprehensive approach to
this issue, making it possible to reflect all the relevant features of the text in most complete and verifiable form.
Keywords: Malay manuscripts, diplomatic edition, textual criticism, facsimile, source copy, scribes' errors, narrative structure,
Brakel, Kratz, Chambert-Loir, Winstedt, Dulaurier
The subject matter of this paper is not new at all. The
main approaches to this issue were formulated by
L. F. Brakel [1], E. U. Kratz [2] and St. Robson [3] who
tried to bring together the general theory of text edition
and their own experience of working with Malay manu-
scripts. In the years that followed, a huge number of lit-
erary and historical texts, originally written in Ma-
lay-Arabic script (jawi), have been Romanized and ed-
ited according to modern spelling standards. Among
them the ratio of diplomatic and critical editions was
roughly equal but the question posed above has not lost
its relevance up to now. In the present paper, arguments
regarding this issue will be put forward, based on au-
thor's personal experience as translator and editor of Ma-
lay manuscript texts. The key role is played here by tasks
put forward by the editor, by his professional skills and,
last but not least, by the number of copies of each text
available for research.
The process of studying and publishing of Malay
manuscripts began about two centuries ago. It was an
accessible and convenient means of teaching Malay to
European colonial officials (British and Dutch). Besides,
these texts attracted attention of scholars, some of whom
were part of the local colonial staff but did not limit their
activities to formal duties. Sometimes the first editors of
Malay texts were not ready to go beyond the bounds of
local tradition and deliberately change its rules.
One of them was P. P. Roorda van Eysinga (1796—
1856) who published in Batavia in jawi script the famous
Malay work in “mirror-for-princes” genre, Taj al-salatin
© L. Goriaeva, 2018. Manuscripta Orientalia, 24/2 (2018), pp. 58—61
L. Goriaeva
Institute of Oriental Studies (Moscow), Russian Academy
of Sciences, Russia
E-mail: l.goriaeva@yandex.ru
(“Crown of Kings”) by Bukhari al-Jawhari (1603) with
parallel Dutch translation and comments [4]. In his
foreword composed in Malay in a strictly traditional
style he spoke about the blessing of Lord to those who
would read this book and follow its teachings. In another
foreword, written in Dutch, the editor pointed out that he
compiled his text using five source copies, not mention-
ing which ones exactly he used and what corrections he
made. Far from being academic, such a way of dealing
with source texts was that of a common Malay copyist of
the past.
A similar approach was that of R. O. Winstedt
(1878—1966) who published in 1906, also in jawi script,
a text whose origin up to now remain obscure. It was
Hikayat Shams al-Bahrain, a story of pure fiction, full of
adventures and fantasy [5]. In British collections there
are three manuscripts bearing this title: Raffles Malay 61
and Maxwell 3 (Royal Asiatic society), MS Malay c.1
(Bodleian Library) [6]. The publisher did not mention
which of them he used as source copy but the spelling of
the title shows that, most probably, it was MS Malay c.1,
incomplete at end. In his short foreword written in Malay
R. O. Winstedt pointed out that he made some correc-
tions to the text and invited the future generations of
copyists to proceed the same way. It may be two other
manuscripts from the Royal Asiatic Society collection
that he used to complete the story. A scholarly edition of
Hikayat Shamsu'l-Bahrain (“The Story of Shamsu’l-
Bahrain”) (diplomatic or critical) is still a matter of fu-
ture.
L. GORIAEVA. Edition of Malay Manuscripts…
Both cases show that these editors, like common
Malay scribes, had no special concern for the exact,
word-by-word copying of the original, if only the narra-
tive remained consistent and logical. A more academic
approach to Malay manuscripts' editing was that of the
French orientalist Edouard Dulaurier (1807—1881). In
1840, being in London to consult the Royal Asiatic Soci-
ety manuscript collection, he made a handcopy of an
early Malay chronicle — Hikayat Raja Pasai (“The
Story of the Kings of Pasai”) [7] thoroughly reproducing
all the imperfections of the source manuscript which at
that time was the only copy available of the chronicle.
Later he published it in Paris using the copy-text method,
also in jawi script [8]. In the footnotes E. Dulaurier sug-
gested his own spelling of some words that he consid-
ered to be copyist's errors.
In the second part of the 20th century a number of
critical editions appeared, to mention, for instance, that
of the chronicle Hikayat Banjar (“The Story of Banjar”),
carried out by J. J. Ras [9], Hikayat Muhammad Hanafi-
yya (“The Story of Muhammad Hanafiyya”) by
L. F. Brakel [10] and Hikayat Dewa Mandu (“The Story
of Dewa Mandu”) with an in-depth research by
H. Chambert-Loir [11]. Nevertheless, a considerable part
of Malay manuscript texts are available in a very small
number of copies, not sufficient for a reliable critical
edition, and even sometimes are preserved in a unique
manuscript. The present paper speaks about the author's
approach to this issue, based on personal experience of
editing and translating Malay manuscript texts into Rus-
sian.
The first of them was Hikayat Maharaja Marakarma
(“The Story of Maharaja Marakarma”) [12]. Three cop-
ies of this text are part of the Malay manuscript collec-
tion of St. Petersburg (Institute of Oriental Manuscripts,
Russian Academy of Sciences) [13]. All three originate
from the lending library of Fadli family (Jakarta, Indone-
sia) [14]. The older one (ɋ 1967) was dated 1844 or
1848. The two others (B 2506 and D 450), dated respec-
tively 1909 and 1912(?), are copies of ɋ 1967 divided
into two parts. Its text turned out to be unique: in spite of
the title, it was not the well-known Malay story by the
name of Hikayat Marakarma (also called Hikayat Si Mi-
skin, “The Story of a Poor Man”), but its sequel, with
a new generation of heroes as main actors.
The edition comprised a facsimile of ɋ 1967 on CD,
its transliteration, Russian translation, commentaries,
research article and addenda. Most likely, ȼ 2506 and
D 450 were copied directly from ɋ 1967. A comparison
of initial and final fragments of the three manuscripts
was an opportunity to see what changes a scribe could
bring to the source text [15].
The difference between ɋ 1967 and B 2506—D 450
concerned mainly such formal aspects as the use of
synonyms (permaisuri / tuanputeri, serta / seraya, se-
rupa / sama, naga / ular naga), addition or change of
suffixes (negeri / negerinya, didatangi / didatangan),
reduplication, etc. Most obviously, all these were
self-dictation mistakes, proper to any copyist who ne-
glects minor details as long as he follows the main line
of the story. If the copyist of ɋ 1967 was not its author
59
but just a scribe who used another source copy, he could
have made similar changes to the text while rewriting it.
Therefore, the “original” or “archetype” of such a text
can hardly be reconstructed word-by-word.
Another text edition was that of Hikayat Pandawa
Jaya (“The Story of the Glorious Pandawas”), a Malay
version of Mahabharata [16]. Its source manuscript was
Raffles Malay 2 from the Royal Asiatic Society collec-
tion [17]. Since long time, Malay prose narratives going
back to the Old-Javanese epic poem Bharatayuddha
(based on Mahabharata story) attracted attention of Ma-
lay scholars [18]. However, issues of the relationship
between different versions of this story began to be con-
sidered only by the end of the 20th century. L. F. Brakel
compared the plots six manuscripts of the Hikayat and
draw a stemma reflecting their alleged kinship [19].
H. Chambert-Loir made a thorough description of the
manuscript Malay B 12 (India Office Library) [20] fol-
lowed by a fragment of its text in Malay with French
translation [21].
A word-by-word comparison of this fragment with
similar passages from Raffles Malay 2 and another
manuscript from this group, Br 2 [22] revealed a stability
of vocabulary common to all three and covering the nec-
essary minimum of words by which a coherent story
could be told. Small differences between the three frag-
ments did not alter at all the general course of the narra-
tion [23]. However, a comparison of texts on the level of
the story's plot structure reveals significant differences
between them.
Raffles Malay 2 is the longest of all the
above-mentioned versions of the Malay Mahabharata.
Bharatayuddha was not the only source of its story: half
a dozen episodes were inspired by some other
Old-Javanese epic poems and wayang (shadow-puppet
theatre) plays. The anonymous Malay writer compiled
them, weaving the narrative plot line like a music com-
poser, with some themes coming back again and again.
Such texts derived from more than one source are said to
be contaminated [24].
It is hardly possible here to imagine a form of com-
parative text edition where all these elements: vocabu-
lary, plot structure, sequence of episodes — could be
fully taken into account, especially if the publisher has to
deal with a contaminated source text. The best choice is
probably a facsimile / diplomatic / critical edition of one
manuscript, like that of Hikayat Maharaja Marakarma.
References to other manuscripts of the same work may
be especially useful when some words or fragments are
unreadable. In the Hikayat Maharaja Marakarma edition
some passages from the corrupted pages 1 and 2 of
ɋ 1967 were reconstructed with the help of B 2506 and
D 450.
Such an approach to the text's edition seems to be
the only one possible if the book survived in a single
manuscript or two, as it was the case with the
above-mentioned Malay chronicle — Hikayat Raja
Pasai [25]. Up to 1986 the only available manuscript
was Raffles Malay 67 from the Royal Asiatic Society
collection, not taking into account its handcopy made by
E. Dulaurier.
60 Manuscripta Orientalia. VOL. 24 NO. 2 DECEMBER 2018

In 1986 the British Library acquired a Malay manu-
script (Or. 14350), the second part of which contained
the text of the chronicle [26]. Unfortunately, it couldn't
be of any help for a proper critical edition because 20%
(17½ pages) of its text were lacking. E. U. Kratz pub-
lished a thorough research article about Or. 14350 [27].
He compared some similar passages of the two manu-
scripts, but, as the second one was incomplete and with-
out colophon, it contained no data about its source text.
The problem of the origin and of the alleged kinship of
Raffles Malay 67 with Or. 14350 remain unsolved.
Therefore, a multi-level approach to Malay manu-
scripts' editing seems to be the best solution. In cases
when a publisher has only one manuscript at his dis-
posal, a diplomatic edition becomes the only suitable
method of publishing. It opens a way to further research
when new manuscripts of the same work are found. Such
an edition should comprise the manuscript's facsimile
(like Russell Jones' edition of Hikayat Raja Pasai [28] or
the Russian edition of Hikayat Maharaja Marakarma) so
that the readings that may seem dubious to other scholars
can be verified.
At the same time, it is equally important (and per-
haps even more important) to study the text's narrative
structure and composition. As the example of Hikayat
Pandawa Jaya has shown, it can give us much more in-
formation about the text's history and the origin of some
of its elements.

Notes

1. Brakel, 1977: 87—98. 16. Goriaeva (ed.), 2017; eadem, 2011.

2. Kratz, 1979. 17. Ricklefs, Voorhoeve & Gallop, 2014: 133.
3. Robson, 1971; idem, 1988. 18. See for ref. Goriaeva, 2011: 15—17.
4. Roorda van Eysinga (ed.), 1827. 19. Brakel, 1980: 143—160.
5. Winstedt (ed.), 1906. 20. Ricklefs, Voorhoeve & Gallop, 2014: 124—125.
6. Ricklefs, Voorhoeve & Gallop, 2014: 104, 140, 143. 21. Chambert-Loir, 1977: 265—291.
7. Cabaton, 1912: 224. 22. Khalid Hussain (ed.), 1964.
8. Dulaurier (ed.), 1849. 23. Goriaeva, 2011: 345—357.
9. Ras, 1968. 24. Maas, 1958: 7—9.
10. Brakel, 1975. 25. Goriaeva, 2015.
11. Chambert-Loir, 1980. 26. Thanks to Annabel Gallop, Lead Curator of the South-
12. Goriaeva (ed.), 2008. east Asian Studies department at the British Library, the fac-
13. Braginsky & Boldyreva, 1990: 153—178. simile of the manuscript can now be consulted online. See
14. About the Fadli lending library see: Braginsky, 2002: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Or_14350
37—61; Chambert-Loir, 1984: 44—72; idem, 1991: 87—114; [Accessed: 01.12.2018].
Goriaeva, 2001: 99—113. 27. Kratz, 1989: 1—10.
15. Goriaeva (ed.), 2008: 523—525. 28. Jones (ed.), 1999.

References

Braginsky, V. I. (2002), “Malay scribes on their craft and audience (with special reference to the description of the reading as-
sembly by Safirin bin Usman Fadli”, Indonesia and the Malay World, vol. 30, No. 86, pp. 37—61.
Braginsky, V. I. & Boldyreva, M. A. (1990), “Les manuscrits malais de Leningrad”, Archipel. Etudes interdisciplinaires sur le
monde insulindien, vol. 40, pp. 153—178.
Brakel, L. F. (1977), “Der ortliche Faktor in der indonesischen handschriftlichen Uberlieferung”, Review of Indonesian and
Malayan Affairs, vol. 11, pp. 87—98.
Brakel, L. F. (1975), The Hikayat Muhammad Hanafiyyah. A Medieval Muslim-Malay Romance, The Hague: Nijhoff (Biblio-
theca Indonesica, 12).
Brakel, L. F. (1980), “Two Indian epics in Malay”, Archipel. Etudes interdisciplinaires sur le monde insulindien, vol. 20,
pp. 143—160.
Cabaton, A. (1912), Catalogue sommaire des manuscrits Indiens, Indo-Chinois et Malayo-Polynésiens de la Bibliothèque Na-
tionale, Paris: Ernest Leroux.
Chambert-Loir, H. (1977), “A propos du Mahabharata malais”, Bulletin de l'Ecole Française d'Extrême-Orient, vol. 64,
pp. 265—291.
Chambert-Loir, H. (1980), Hikayat Dewa Mandu. Epopée malaise. Texte et presentation, vol. 1, Paris: Ecole Française d'Ex-
trême-Orient.
Chambert-Loir, H. (1991), “Malay literature in the 19th century; the Fadli Collection”, in: J. J. Ras & S. O. Robson (eds.), Varia-
tion, Transformation and Meaning; Studies on Indonesian Literatures in Honour of A. Teeuw, Leiden, KITLV Press, p. 87—114.
Chambert-Loir, H. (1984), “Muhammad Bakir. A Batavian author and scribe of the nineteenth century”, Review of Indonesian
and Malaysian Affairs, No.°18, pp. 44—72.
Dulaurier, Ed. (ed.) (1849), Collection des Principales Chroniques Malayes. Premier fascicule. La chronique du Royaume de
Pasey, Paris: Imprimerie nationale.
L. GORIAEVA. Edition of Malay Manuscripts… 61

Goriaeva, L. (ed.) (2017), Hikayat Pandawa Jaya [“The Story of the Glorious Pandawas”], Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan
Pustaka.
Goriaeva, L. (ed.) (2011), Pamjatniki malajskoj knizhnosti XV—XVII vv. [Monuments of Malay Book Culture from 15th to
17th Century], Russian translation, research analysis, commentaries by L. V. Goriaeva, Moscow: Vostochnaja literatura.
Goriaeva, L. (ed.) (2008), Povestү o maharadzhe Marakarme [The Story of Maharaja Marakarma], facsimile of the manu-
script, transliteration, Russian translation, research analysis & commentaries by L. V. Goriaeva, Moscow: Vostochnaja literatura
(Pamjatniki pis'mennosti Vostoka, 129).
Goriaeva, L. (ed.). (2015), Povestү o radzhah Paseja [The Story of the Kings of Pasai], Russian translation, research analysis,
commentaries, Moscow: Vostochnaja literatura.
Goriaeva, L. (2001), “La dernière hikayat malaise”, Archipel. Etudes interdisciplinaires sur le monde insulindien, vol. 61,
pp. 99—113.
Jones, R. (ed.) (1999), Hikayat Raja Pasai [“The Story of the Kings of Pasai”], dikaji dan diperkenalkan oleh Russell Jones,
Kuala Lumpur: Yayasan Karyawan dan Penerbit Fajar Bakti.
Khalid Hussain (ed.) (1964), Hikayat Pandawa Lima, Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kementerian Pelajaran.
Kratz, E. U. (1979), “The editing of Malay manuscripts and textual criticism”, Second European Colloquium on Indonesian
Studies, London [Unpublished paper].
Kratz, E. U. (1989), “Hikayat Raja Pasai: a second manuscript”, Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,
vol. 62, No. 1 (256), pp. 1—10.
Maas, P. (1958), Textual Criticism, transl. from German by B. Flower, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ras, J. J. (ed.) (1968), Hikayat Bandjar. A Study on Malay Historiography, The Hague: Nijhoff.
Ricklefs, M. C., Voorhoeve, P. & Gallop, A. T. (2014), Indonesian Manuscripts in Great Britain. A Catalogue of Manuscripts
in Indonesian Languages in British Public Collections. New Edition with Addenda and Corrigenda, Jakarta: Yayasan Pustaka Obor
Indonesia.
Robson, St. (1988), Principles of Indonesian Philology, Dordrecht, Holland / Providence, USA: Foris Publications (Koninklijk
Instituut voor Taal-, Land en Volkenkunde. Working Papers 1).
Robson, St. (1971), Wanban Wideya, critical edition and translation, The Hague: Nijhoff.
Roorda van Eysinga, P. P. (ed.). (1827), De Kroon aller koningen, van Bocharie van Djohor, naar een oud Maleische geschrift
vertaald, Batavia: Ter Lands Drukkerij.
Winstedt, R. O. (ed.) (1906), “Hikayat Shams ul-Bahrain”, Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, No. 47,
Singapore, Methodist Publishing House, pp. 1—269.

DOI: 10.31250/1238-5018-2018-24-2-58-61 Received by the Editorial Board: 3.05.2018