Article

Malay manuscripts

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

Malay manuscripts

Malay manuscripts constitute a body of written texts produced across the Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Borneo, and the wider Indonesian Archipelago from at least the early sixteenth century to the present, encompassing religious treatises, royal chronicles, legal codes, romances, diplomatic correspondence, and devotional poetry. The tradition is characterised by its multilingualism—Arabic, Persian, Malay, and occasionally Tamil, Sanskrit, and Javanese coexisting within single volumes—and by its material diversity, from handmade Eastern papers and European factory stock to copper plates and palm leaf. These objects serve simultaneously as vehicles of Islamic learning, instruments of statecraft, records of commercial diplomacy, and repositories of literary and mythological heritage, making them indispensable to the study of the region’s political, religious, and cultural history [1, pp. 29–35], [2, pp. 81–102], [3, pp. 107–151].

Scope and Historical Definition

The earliest surviving Malay manuscripts on paper date to approximately 1600, with the sole exception of two letters sent by the Sultan of Ternate to Portuguese rulers in 1521 and 1522, written on European paper [2, p. 82]. The oldest manuscript in the Pusat Manuskrip Melayu collection is Kitab Tasauf (MS 1517), copied by Sheikh Abdul Rauf Fansuri in 1679 [2, p. 86]. Rev. W. G. Shellabear’s 1898 examination of manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, the British Museum, and the Leiden University Library established that the letters of authority to trade issued by the sultans of Acheen to English captains in the early 1600s constitute the oldest extant Malay manuscripts of philological significance [3, pp. 103–107]. Letter A (Bodleian MS. Douce Or. e. 5), dated 1011 A.H. (1602 A.D.), is a copy of a letter of authority from the King of Acheen to an English captain, probably Sir James Lancaster; Letter B (MS. Douce Or. e. 4) is an original bearing the stamp of Sultan ‘Ala’u ‘d-Din Shah, addressed to Captain Harry Middleton; and Letter C (MS. Laud Or. b. I (R)), dated 1024 A.H. (1612 A.D.), is an elaborately illuminated scroll of approximately three feet in length from the Sultan of Acheen to King James I [3, pp. 103–107].

The subject matter of Malay manuscripts spans a wide range. Theological and mystical works include the Arabic dogmatical treatise Izam al-fawa’id fi nizam al-‘aka’id, attributed to Mahmud Ibn Muhammad Labai Kumaran and drawing on Al-Ghazali, Al-Nawawi, and Ibn ‘Arabi [1, p. 31]. Legal texts encompass the Undang-Undang manuscripts from Sumatra’s West Coast, which form a related group of Minangkabau customary law codes, some in Jawi script and others in Dutch romanised transcription [4, pp. 252–257]. Literary romances such as the Hikayat Seri Rama, a Malay translation of the Ramayana preserved in a quarto volume of approximately 800 pages on Eastern-manufacture paper acquired by the Bodleian in 1633 [3, p. 113], and the Hikayat Iskandar, the Malay romance of Alexander the Great, whose four manuscripts catalogued by Winstedt are traced by Douglas to a common source copied in 1867 by Tungku Kudin, a Kedah prince and former Viceroy of Langat [5, p. 162]. Diplomatic documents include original treaties between the Sultan of Ternate and the Dutch East India Company dated 18 June 1638 and 30 January 1650, the latter concerning sovereignty and the destruction of clove-trees against a payment of 6,000 reals [4, p. 255].

A distinctive feature of the tradition is its multilingual character. Van Ronkel’s 1922 study of a manuscript in the Leiden University Library (No. 754) demonstrated that a single folio could unite four Islamic languages—Arabic, Persian, Malay, and Tamil written in Arabic script—a combination he considered unique in the Netherlands and Dutch India [1, p. 30]. The manuscript, dated internally to 29 August 1767, was acquired by Snouck Hurgronje in Java and is argued to have been produced by a peranakan scribe of Tamil-Malay parentage in British Malaya [1, pp. 29–35]. Van Ronkel’s central analytical contribution concerns the identity of the scribe: he argues that no Tamil immigrant could have achieved such fluency in Malay as to write in both languages with equal ease, and that the author must have been a peranakan—a son born in Malaya to a Tamil Muslim father and a Malay mother, inheriting Tamil from the father, Malay from the mother, and Islam from both [1, p. 34]. This generational model of linguistic and religious transmission is presented as the mechanism by which Islam took root in the Archipelago [1, p. 34].

Material Composition and Conservation

The physical substance of Malay manuscripts presents a fundamental paradox: manuscripts produced three or more centuries ago on handmade paper with traditional carbon-based inks often survive in better condition than those copied within the last hundred years on factory-produced acidic paper with iron gall inks [2, pp. 83–88]. Ding Choo Ming’s 1993 survey identifies the diverse paper sources—Chinese, Indian, and European—evident in watermarks and fibre composition, and contrasts the durable, low-acidity traditional inks with the corrosive modern inks whose sulphuric acid content perforates and oxidises the paper from within [2, pp. 83–88]. Traditional Malay ink was prepared from charcoal, soot, lamp black, or paper ash mixed with coconut oil, salt, latex from buah jagus, mangosteen skin, black pepper, pulut rice, and cuka nipis; in Riau-Lingga, sotong (cuttlefish) ink was used [2, p. 87].

Watermarks identified in Malay manuscripts in Southeast Asian collections include Waterlow & Sons Ltd. (London), Guthrie & Co. (elephant), The Borneo Co. Ltd. (Singapore), Union Times Press Ltd. (Singapore), J. Whatman, and Andrea Galvani Pordenone [2, pp. 83–84]. The visible stages of decay documented by Ding include foxing, ink corrosion, insect bore-holes, and embrittlement; Hikayat Usul Majlis Perdana Halim (MS 20, UKM), written on exercise-book paper, is described as “badly corroded,” while Tembang Serat Lokapala (MS 36, UKM), 158 leaves at 33 × 21 cm, is “riddled with holes” from ink oxidation [2, p. 87].

The tropical climate of Southeast Asia, combined with the widespread use of chemically treated paper since the 1850s, has created conditions under which manuscripts deteriorate far more rapidly than their European counterparts, a point illustrated by the comparison between the near-pristine Sejarah Melayu (Raffles 18) in the British Library and its damaged counterparts in Kuala Lumpur [2, pp. 91]. Ding distinguishes between preventive measures—optimal storage at 20–25°C and 40–50% relative humidity, acid-free boxes, horizontal shelving, and the use of indigenous insect repellents such as petawali powder and pandan wangi leaves—and curative interventions such as deacidification with magnesium carbonate, dry cleaning, and solvent-based stain removal [2, pp. 94–99]. A 10°F (approximately 5.5°C) reduction in storage temperature is estimated to double the useful life of paper [2, p. 97]. Ding also confronts the institutional and economic constraints facing Southeast Asian libraries: the absence of dedicated conservation units, the shortage of trained conservators, and the reluctance of university management to allocate funds for what is perceived as a low-utility activity [2, pp. 98–99].

Collections and Cataloguing

The distribution of Malay manuscripts across European and Southeast Asian institutions reflects the colonial-era patterns of acquisition and exchange. Shellabear’s 1898 article examined holdings at the Bodleian Library, the British Museum, and the Leiden University Library, noting that the manuscripts had “never before been noticed in any scientific journal” despite their presence in major European libraries for decades [3, p. 103]. Overbeck’s 1926 catalogue extended this framework to German public libraries, documenting holdings at Berlin, Dresden, Munich, and Hamburg [4, pp. 233–259]. The bulk of his article is devoted to the Schoemann collection at the Preussische Staatsbibliothek, Berlin, which he observes appears to consist largely of copies made to order for a European collector, written by a small number of scribes on European paper, with colophons dating copies between A.H. 1241 (c. 1825) and A.H. 1274 (1857) [4, p. 235]. The Munich collection includes a four-volume Arabic-Malay and Malay-Arabic dictionary (Cod. or. mixt. 95–98) and four letters of safe-conduct from Borneo princes issued for Dr. Karl Brugel and his hunter, dated 1326–1327 A.H. (1908–1909 A.D.) [4, p. 259]. The Hamburg manuscript (Brockelmann-Catalogus No. 295), a 122-leaf volume of very thin paper, was the property of Joh. Fr. Winckler, head-pastor in Hamburg since 1718, and contains a Sufi treatise, chapters from Suyuti’s encyclopaedia with interlinear Malay translation, and formal petition templates for addressing the Sultan, Kadi, Mufti, and Ulema [4, p. 259].

In Southeast Asia, the principal collections examined by Ding include the Pusat Manuskrip Melayu (Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia), the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia library, and Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka [2, pp. 81–102]. Kratz’s 1980 article provides a brief description of the “Malay” manuscripts of the Overbeck Collection at the Museum Pusat, Jakarta [6, pp. 90–106]. The Royal Asiatic Society Library in London holds MS Maxwell 93, a copy of Nur ad-Din ar-Raniri’s Hujjat as-siddik li-daf’ az-zindik, whose colophon date of 12 Sha’ban 1186 A.H. (8 November 1772 A.D.) was confirmed by Russell Jones in 1972 through internal consistency of the weekday and watermark analysis of the PRO PATRIA paper, with closest matches dated ca. 1769–1770 [7, pp. 116–118].

Research and Documentation

The Society’s literature on Malay manuscripts reveals a progression from initial philological description toward material science and conservation, with persistent attention to dating, provenance, and textual criticism. The earliest contributions, Shellabear (1898) and Maxwell (1878), established the foundational task of identifying, transcribing, and translating manuscripts that had languished unexamined in European libraries [3, pp. 107–151], [8, pp. 183–193]. Maxwell’s 1878 notes on two Perak manuscripts addressed the near-total absence of reliable written history for the Malay states, arguing that while these texts are riddled with legend and exaggeration, they constitute the only purely native written accounts of Perak’s rulers and possess genuine value when cross-referenced against European documentary sources [8, pp. 183–193]. His Misal Malayu manuscript, probably completed around 1778, provides detailed accounts of Dutch commercial relations with Perak, including a treaty concluded on 17 October 1765 between the VOC and “Paduca Siry Sultan Mohamed Shah, King of Pera” [8, p. 189].

The interwar period saw the consolidation of cataloguing frameworks. Van Ronkel’s 1922 article on the Tamil-Malay manuscript contributed to the historiography of Islamic transmission by providing a concrete textual artifact for the peranakan model of linguistic and religious transmission [1, pp. 29–35]. Overbeck’s 1926 German catalogue extended the standard Batavia-Leiden-London framework to German holdings and preserved Snouck Hurgronje’s unpublished marginal notes on several Schoemann manuscripts [4, pp. 233–259]. Winstedt’s 1938 study of the Hikayat Iskandar manuscripts addressed the date, authorship, and contents of the Malay romance of Alexander the Great [9, pp. 1–23], while Douglas’s 1955 note traced their provenance to a common source in a copy made in 1867 by Tungku Kudin [5, p. 162].

From the 1960s onward, the focus shifted toward textual criticism and material conservation. Traill’s 1982 article on the lost manuscript of the Hikayat Abdullah “Munshi” demonstrated how the 1843 autograph copy, discovered in the Library of Congress by Professor A. Teeuw in 1967, revealed significant differences from the 1849 lithographed edition, including Abdullah’s explicit identification of his family as Peranakan Keling (Tamil), a statement deleted in 1849, and the confirmation of his birth date as 18 August 1795 [10, pp. 126–134]. Carroll’s 1982 translation of the Brunei folios of the Boxer Codex provided the most extensive surviving European-language account of Brunei’s internal affairs in the late sixteenth century, covering geography, royal genealogy, law, religion, commerce, and military organisation [11, pp. 1–25]. Hooykaas’s 1965 note on the discovery of a Balinese parikan of the Sabha-Parva challenged the long-held assumption that only eight of the Mahā-Bhārata’s eighteen parvas survive in Old Javanese [12, pp. 125–128]. Ding’s 1993 survey represented one of the earliest systematic treatments of Malay manuscript conservation written from within the Southeast Asian library context, bridging material culture studies, codicology, and practical library science at a time when the region’s conservation infrastructure was still nascent [2, pp. 81–102]. Jones’s 1972 note on the dating of MS Maxwell 93 cautioned against editors too casually rejecting scribe-given dates in Malay manuscripts, a methodological principle that continues to inform the field [7, pp. 116–118].

MBRAS Sources

References

  1. Ph. S. van Ronkel (1922). A Tamil Malay manuscript JSBRAS 85: 29–35.
  2. Ding Choo Ming (1993). Malay manuscripts: materials and problems of conservation JMBRAS 66(2): 81–102. Read on JSTOR
  3. W.G. Shellabear (1898). An account of some of the oldest Malay Mss. now extant JSBRAS 31: 107–151. Read on JSTOR
  4. H. Overbeck (1926). Malay manuscripts in Germany JMBRAS 4(2): 233–259.
  5. F.W. Douglas (1955). The MSS of the Hikayat Iskander JMBRAS 28(1): 161–162. Read on JSTOR
  6. E.U. Kratz (1980). A brief description of the “Malay” manuscripts of the “Overbeck Collection” at the Museum Pusat, Jakarta JMBRAS 53(1): 90–106.
  7. R. Jones (1972). The dating of Ms Maxwell 93 in the Royal Asiatic Society Library JMBRAS 45(1): 116–118.
  8. W.E. Maxwell (1878). Notes on two Perak manuscripts JSBRAS 2: 183–193.
  9. R.O. Winstedt (1938). The date, authorship, contents and some new Mss. of the Malay romance of Alexander the Great JMBRAS 16(2): 1–23.
  10. H.F. O’B. Traill (1982). The lost manuscript of the Hikayat Abdullah “Munshi” JMBRAS 55(2): 126–134. Read on JSTOR
  11. J.S. Carroll (1982). Berunai in the Boxer Codex: with commentary JMBRAS 55(2): 1–25. Read on JSTOR
  12. C. Hooykaas (1965). A note on the Maha-Bharata in Malaysia and Indonesia: Sabha-Parva found in Bali JMBRAS 38(2): 125–128. Read on JSTOR