OF THE ISLAND CALLED PENTAM, AND THE CITY MALAIUR.
When you leave Locac and sail for 500 miles towards the south, you come
to an island called PENTAM, a very wild place. All the wood that grows
thereon consists of odoriferous trees.{1} There is no more to say about
it; so let us sail about sixty miles further between those two Islands.
Throughout this distance there is but four paces’ depth of water, so
that great ships in passing this channel have to lift their rudders,
for they draw nearly as much water as that.{2}
And when you have gone these 60 miles, and again about 30 more, you
come to an Island which forms a Kingdom, and is called MALAIUR. The
people have a King of their own, and a peculiar language. The city is
a fine and noble one, and there is great trade carried on there. All
kinds of spicery are to be found there, and all other necessaries of
life.{3}
NOTE 1.—_Pentam_, or as in Ram. _Pentan_, is no doubt the Bintang
of our maps, more properly BENTĂN, a considerable Island at the
eastern extremity of the Straits of Malacca. It appears in the
list, published by Dulaurier from a Javanese Inscription, of the
kingdoms conquered in the 15th century by the sovereigns reigning
at Majapahit in Java. (_J. A._ sér. IV. tom. xiii. 532.) Bintang
was for a long time after the Portuguese conquest of Malacca the
chief residence of the Malay Sultans who had been expelled by that
conquest, and it still nominally belongs to the Sultan of Johore,
the descendant of those princes, though in fact ruled by the Dutch,
whose port of Rhio stands on a small island close to its western
shore. It is the _Bintão_ of the Portuguese whereof Camoens speaks
as the persistent enemy of Malacca (X. 57).
[Cf. _Professor Schlegel’s Geog. Notes_, VI. _Ma-it_; regarding the
odoriferous trees, Professor Schlegel remarks (p. 20) that they
were probably santal trees.—H. C.]
NOTE 2.—There is a good deal of confusion in the text of this
chapter. Here we have a passage spoken of between “those two
Islands,” when only one island seems to have been mentioned.
But I imagine the other “island” in the traveller’s mind to be
the continuation of the same Locac, _i.e._ the Malay Peninsula
(included by him under that name), which he has coasted for 500
miles. This is confirmed by Ramusio, and the old Latin editions
(as Müller’s): “between the kingdom of Locac and the Island of
Pentan.” The passage in question is the Strait of Singapore, or as
the old navigators called it, the Straits of Gobernador, having
the mainland of the Peninsula and the Island of Singapore, on the
one side, and the Islands of Bintang and Batang on the other. The
length of the strait is roughly 60 geographical miles, or a little
more; and I see in a route given in the _Lettres Edifiantes_ (II.
p. 118) that the length of navigation is so stated: “Le détroit de
Gobernador a vingt lieues de long, et est fort difficile quand on
n’y a jamais passé.”
The Venetian _passo_ was 5 feet. Marco here alludes to the
well-known practice with the Chinese junks of raising the rudder,
for which they have a special arrangement, which is indicated in
the cut at p. 248.
NOTE 3.—There is a difficulty here about the indications, carrying
us, as they do, first 60 miles through the Strait, and then 30
miles further to the Island Kingdom and city of Malaiur. There
is also a singular variation in the readings as to this city and
island. The G. T. has “_Une isle qe est roiame, et s’apelle_
Malanir e l’isle Pentam.” The Crusca has the same, only reading
_Malavir_. Pauthier: “_Une isle qui est royaume, et a nom_ Maliur.”
The Geog. Latin: “_Ibi invenitur una insula in qua est unus rex_
quem vocant Lamovich. _Civitas et insula vocantur_ Pontavich.”
Ram.: “_Chiamasi la città_ Malaiur, e cosi l’isola Malaiur.”
All this is very perplexed, and it is difficult to trace what may
have been the true readings. The 30 miles beyond the straits,
whether we give the direction _south-east_ as in G. T. or no, will
not carry us to the vicinity of any place known to have been the
site of an important city. As the point of departure in the next
chapter is from _Pentam_ and not from Malaiur, the introduction of
the latter is perhaps a digression from the route, on information
derived either from hearsay or from a former voyage. But there is
not information enough to decide what place is meant by Malaiur.
Probabilities seem to me to be divided between _Palembang_, and
its colony _Singhapura_. Palembang, according to the Commentaries
of Alboquerque, was called by the Javanese MALAYO. The List of
Sumatran Kingdoms in De Barros makes TANA-MALAYU the _next_ to
Palembang. On the whole, I incline to this interpretation.
[In _Valentyn_ (V. 1, _Beschryvinge van Malakka_, p. 317) we find
it stated that the Malay people just dwelt on the River _Malayu_
in the Kingdom of Palembang, and were called from the River _Orang
Malayu.—MS. Note._—H. Y.]
[Professor Schlegel in his _Geog. Notes_, IV., tries to prove by
Chinese authorities that Maliur and Tana-Malayu are two quite
distinct countries, and he says that Maliur may have been situated
on the coast opposite Singapore, perhaps a little more to the S.W.
where now lies Malacca, and that Tana-Malayu may be placed in
Asahan, upon the east coast of Sumatra.—H. C.]
Singhapura was founded by an emigration from Palembang, itself a
Javanese colony. It became the site of a flourishing kingdom, and
was then, according to the tradition recorded by De Barros, the
most important centre of population in those regions, “whither
used to gather all the navigators of the Eastern Seas, from both
East and West; to this great city of Singapura all flocked as to
a general market.” (Dec. II. 6, 1.) This suits the description in
our text well; but as Singhapura was in sight of any ship passing
through the straits, mistake could hardly occur as to its position,
even if it had not been visited.
I omit _Malacca_ entirely from consideration, because the evidence
appears to me conclusive against the existence of Malacca at this
time.
The Malay Chronology, as published by Valentyn, ascribes the
foundation of that city to a king called Iskandar Shah, placing
it in A.D. 1252, fixes the reign of Mahomed Shah, the third King
of Malacca and first Mussulman King, as extending from 1276 to
1333 (not stating _when_ his conversion took place), and gives 8
kings in all between the foundation of the city and its capture by
the Portuguese in 1511, a space, according to those data, of 259
years. As Sri Iskandar Shah, the founder, had reigned 3 years in
Singhapura _before_ founding Malacca, and Mahomed Shah, the loser,
reigned 2 years in Johore _after_ the loss of his capital, we have
264 years to divide among 8 kings, giving 33 years to each reign.
This certainly indicates that the period requires considerable
curtailment.
Again, both De Barros and the Commentaries or Alboquerque ascribe
the foundation of Malacca to a Javanese fugitive from Palembang
called Paramisura, and Alboquerque makes Iskandar Shah (_Xaquem
darxa_) the _son_ of Paramisura, and the first convert to
Mahomedanism. _Four_ other kings reign in succession after him, the
last of the four being Mahomed Shah, expelled in 1511.
[Godinho de Eredia says expressly (Cap. i. _Do Citio Malaca_, p.
4) that Malacca was founded by _Permicuri, primeiro monarcha de
Malayos_, in the year 1411, in the Pontificate of John XXIV.,
and in the reign of Don Juan II. of Castille and Dom Juan I. of
Portugal.]
The historian De Couto, whilst giving the same number of reigns
from the conversion to the capture, places the former event about
1384. And the Commentaries of Alboquerque allow no more than some
ninety years from the foundation of Malacca to his capture of the
city.
There is another approximate check to the chronology afforded by
a Chinese record in the XIVth volume of Amyot’s collection. This
informs us that Malacca first acknowledged itself as tributary to
the Empire in 1405, the king being _Sili-ju-eul-sula_ (?). In 1411
the King of Malacca himself, now called _Peilimisula_ (Paramisura),
came in person to the court of China to render homage. And in 1414
the Queen-Mother of Malacca came to court, bringing her son’s
tribute.
Now this notable fact of the visit of a King of Malacca to the
court of China, and his acknowledgment of the Emperor’s supremacy,
is also recorded in the Commentaries of Alboquerque. This work, it
is true, attributes the visit, not to Paramisura, the founder of
Malacca, but to his son and successor Iskandar Shah. This may be
a question of a _title_ only, perhaps borne by both; but we seem
entitled to conclude with confidence that Malacca was founded by
a prince whose son was reigning, and visited the court of China
in 1411. And the real chronology will be about midway between the
estimates of De Couto and of Alboquerque. Hence Malacca did not
exist for a century, more or less, after Polo’s voyage.
[Mr. C. O. Blagden, in a paper on the Mediæval Chronology of
Malacca (_Actes du XIᵉ Cong. Int. Orient. Paris_, 1897), writes (p.
249) that “if Malacca had been in the middle of the 14th century
anything like the great emporium of trade which it certainly was in
the 15th, Ibn Batuta would scarcely have failed to speak of it.”
The foundation of Malacca by Sri Iskandar Shah in 1252, according
to the _Sejarah Malayu_ “must be put at least 125 years later,
and the establishment of the Muhammadan religion there would then
precede by only a few years the end of the 14th century, instead of
taking place about the end of the 13th, as is generally supposed”
(p. 251). (Cf. _G. Schlegel, Geog. Notes_, XV.)—H. C.]
Mr. Logan supposes that the form _Malayu-r_ may indicate that the
Malay language of the 13th century “had not yet replaced the strong
naso-guttural terminals by pure vowels.” We find the same form in a
contemporary Chinese notice. This records that in the 2nd year of
the Yuen, tribute was sent from Siam to the Emperor. “The Siamese
had long been at war with the _Maliyi_ or MALIURH, but both nations
laid aside their feud and submitted to China.” (_Valentyn_, V. p.
352; _Crawford’s Desc. Dict._ art. _Malacca_; _Lassen_, IV. 541
_seqq._; _Journ. Ind. Archip._ V. 572, II. 608–609; _De Barros_,
Dec. II. 1. vi. c. 1; _Comentarios do grande Afonso d’Alboquerque_,
Pt. III. cap. xvii.; _Couto_, Dec. IV. liv. ii.; _Wade_ in
_Bowring’s Kingdom and People of Siam_, I. 72.)
[From I-tsing we learn that going from China to India, the
traveller visits the country of _Shih-li-fuh-shi_ (_Çrībhôja_
or simply _Fuh-shi_ = Bhôja), then _Mo-louo-yu_, which seems to
Professor Chavannes to correspond to the _Malaiur_ of Marco Polo
and to the modern Palembang, and which in the 10th century formed
a part of Çribhôdja identified by Professor Chavannes with Zabedj.
(_I-tsing_, p. 36.) The Rev. S. Beal has some remarks on this
question in the _Merveilles de l’Inde_, p. 251, and he says that
he thinks “there are reasons for placing this country [Çrībhôja],
or island, on the East coast of Sumatra, and near Palembang, or,
on the Palembang River.” Mr. Groeneveldt (_T’oung Pao_, VII. abst.
p. 10) gives some extracts from Chinese authors, and then writes:
“We have therefore to find now a place for the Molayu of I-tsing,
the Malaiur of Marco Polo, the Malayo of Alboquerque, and the
Tana-Malayu of De Barros, all which may be taken to mean the same
place. I-tsing tells us that it took fifteen days to go from Bhôja
to Molayu and fifteen days again to go from there to Kieh-ch’a.
The latter place, suggesting a native name Kada, must have been
situated in the north-west of Sumatra, somewhere near the present
Atjeh, for going from there west, one arrived in thirty days at
Magapatana, near Ceylon, whilst a northern course brought one in
ten days to the Nicobar Islands. Molayu should thus lie half-way
between Bhôja and Kieh-ch’a, but this indication must not be taken
too literally where it is given for a sailing vessel, and there
is also the statement of De Barros, which does not allow us to go
too far away from Palembang, as he mentions Tana-Malayu _next_ to
that place. We have therefore to choose between the next three
larger rivers: those of Jambi, Indragiri, and Kampar, and there
is an indication in favour of the last one, not very strong, it
is true, but still not to be neglected. I-tsing tells us: ‘Le
roi me donna des secours grâce auxquels je parvins au pays de
_Mo-louo-yu_; j’y séjournai derechef pendant deux mois. Je changeai
de direction pour aller dans le pays de _Kie-tcha_.’ The change
of direction during a voyage along the east coast of Sumatra from
Palembang to Atjeh is nowhere very perceptible, because the course
is throughout more or less north-west, still one may speak of a
change of direction at the mouth of the River Kampar, about the
entrance of the Strait of Malacca, whence the track begins to run
more west, whilst it is more north before. The country of Kampar
is of little importance now, but it is not improbable that there
has been a Hindoo settlement, as the ruins of religious monuments
decidedly Buddhist are still existing on the upper course of the
river, the only ones indeed on this side of the island, it being
a still unexplained fact that the Hindoos in Java have built on a
very large scale, and those of Sumatra hardly anything at all.”—Mr.
Takakusu (_A Record of the Buddhist Religion_, p. xli.) proposes to
place Shih-li-fuh-shi at Palembang and Mo-louo-yu farther on the
northern coast of Sumatra.—(Cf. _G. Schlegel, Geog. Notes_, XVI.;
_P. Pelliot, Bul. Ecole Franç. Ext. Orient_, II. pp. 94–96.)—H. C.]