Article

The texts of the Hikayat Raja Pasai: a short note

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

The texts of the Hikayat Raja Pasai: a short note

Russell Jones published this short note in 1980 in the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (Vol. 53, No. 1), addressing the textual transmission history of the Hikayat Raja Pasai, one of the earliest known Malay texts chronicling the first Muslim rulers of Pasai in North Sumatra from approximately 1280 AD. The note’s central argument is that the work’s title has been systematically misrendered since the first published edition of 1849, and that the colophon of the sole surviving manuscript confirms the correct title as Hikayat Raja Pasai without the plural Raja-Raja (p. 167).

Summary

The article traces the manuscript history of the Hikayat Raja Pasai and the four published editions that have appeared since 1849, demonstrating how transcription errors and editorial choices have compounded over time. The sole substantive manuscript is a Jawi-script copy completed on 3 January 1815 for Sir Stamford Raffles while he was Lieutenant-Governor of Java, made by one of his scribes in Batavia from a loaned original provided by the Regent of Demak. This manuscript, now Raffles Malay no. 67 in the Royal Asiatic Society Library, London, is the only witness of independent textual value; a second copy in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris (no. Mal.-Pol. 50), is merely a facsimile made by Edouard Dulaurier during a visit to London in 1838 and carries no additional reference value (p. 167).

The core problem Jones identifies is the propagation of errors across successive editions. Dulaurier’s 1849 edition, while the most reliable in its romanisation, introduced the title Hikayat Raja-Raja Pasai from the colophon, a reading that all subsequent editors followed. Mead’s 1914 romanised edition contained numerous misreadings and printing errors. Hill’s 1962 edition, published by MBRAS, was the most ambitious—offering a revised romanised text, introduction, English translation, and comprehensive notes—but because Hill was killed in an air crash in Java on 26 January 1961 before he could revise the final proofs, the published transcription contained many errors when checked against the manuscript, leading to its withdrawal from the University of London B.A. Malay syllabus (pp. 167–168). The 1973 Yogyakarta edition by Teuku Ibrahim Alfian, while adding helpful notes, omitted the last two pages of the Malay text entirely (p. 168).

Jones supports his argument by reproducing the colophon page of the Raffles manuscript and collating it against the corresponding passages in all four editions, alongside a proposed transcription of his own. This side-by-side comparison makes visible how each edition diverges from the manuscript, particularly in the title and in the date formula. A page-number collation table further illustrates the varying pagination across editions, underscoring the practical difficulties scholars face in cross-referencing the text (pp. 169–171).

Key Findings

  • The sole substantive manuscript (Raffles Malay no. 67, Royal Asiatic Society, London) was completed on 3 January 1815 by a scribe in Batavia for Sir Stamford Raffles (p. 167).
  • The correct title, as attested in the manuscript colophon, is Hikayat Raja Pasai; the plural Raja-Raja was introduced by Dulaurier in 1849 and has persisted in all subsequent editions (pp. 167, 169).
  • Hill’s 1962 MBRAS edition was withdrawn from the University of London B.A. Malay syllabus after misreadings were identified against the manuscript; the MBRAS Council subsequently withdrew all remaining copies of JMBRAS Vol. 33 Part 2 (1960) from circulation (pp. 168, 171).
  • The 1973 Yogyakarta edition by Teuku Ibrahim Alfian omits the last two pages of the Malay text entirely (p. 168).
  • The colophon dates the copy to the 21st day of Muharram, year 1230 AH (corresponding to 1815 CE), and identifies the copyist as Kyai Suradimangala, bupati of Demak, nagari Bogor (p. 170).
  • A page-number collation table shows that the 140-page manuscript corresponds to 106 pages in Dulaurier (1849), 54 in Mead (1914), 106 in Hill (1960), and 90 in Alfian (1973), reflecting the varying scope and completeness of each edition (p. 171).

Conclusion

Jones’s definitive takeaway is that the Hikayat Raja Pasai remains without a reliable published edition: the title has been misrendered for over a century, every existing edition contains significant errors, and the most scholarly of them (Hill’s) has been formally withdrawn. The note serves as both a corrective to the title and a call to action, with Jones announcing that a revised transcription in Reformed Spelling was retyped in 1979 and hoped to be published “before long” (p. 168).

Context

  • The primary archival source is Raffles Malay no. 67, held in the Royal Asiatic Society Library, London; Jones reproduces the colophon page directly from this manuscript (p. 169).
  • The note’s historiographical contribution lies in establishing the correct title through direct manuscript evidence and in documenting the cumulative textual corruption across four editions, thereby providing the evidential basis for a future definitive edition.

References