The Tale of Prince Samuttakote: A Buddhist Epic from Thailand

Reviewed by Michael W. Charney

The Journal of the American

Vol.116 No.1

Jan-March 1996

 P.180

Copyright by American Oriental Society
 
 




            
            
     
            In The Tale of Prince Samuttakote, Thomas John Hudak offers us a 
            useful translation of a Thai poetic version of the tale of Buddha's 
            previous incarnation as Prince Samutthakhoot, one of the fifty 
            apocryphal jataka tales known as pannyatsachadok. To my knowledge, 
            this is the first time that an English translation of this Thai epic 
            poem has been published. The translation will thus be of great 
            interest and usefulness to scholars of early modern Southeast Asian 
            texts, especially for those who work in Southeast Asian languages 
            other than Thai. 
            While authorship of the epic is controversial - each of the epic's 
            three parts was written by a different poet, but the first two poets 
            have yet to be identified with absolute certainty - the 
            periodization of the poem's composition is less doubtful. 
            Seventeenth-century poets (one of them may have been King Narai) 
            composed the first two sections of the poem and Prince Paramanuchit 
            Chinorot finished the third and last section in 1849. This 
            periodization is important, because the first two sections of the 
            epic provide the reader with useful information on 
            seventeenth-century court society and culture. The epic version, for 
            example, departs from the jataka story at numerous points, providing 
            new elements, values, and references to the story, which are rooted 
            in the cultural context of the time and place in which the epic poem 
            was constructed. Scholars of early modern Southeast Asian literature 
            will be more interested in the actual framework of the story's 
            presentation, as it provokes inquiries concerning whether the 
            presentation used shadow puppets or living actors. Hudak also 
            provides a useful analysis of the use of both kaap and chan meters 
            in the poem, as well as extensive and useful annotations. 
            If there is any criticism to be made of Hudak's project, it would 
            concern his brief preliminary commentary to the translation. Some 
            discussion, for example, would have been useful of how Hudak's 
            translation is influenced by his own context. Nancy Florida, in a 
            forthcoming publication, has made clear the need for translators to 
            understand that the translation of texts really involves the 
            intersection of new as well as old contexts. 
            Despite this major lacuna, however, Hudak's translation is important 
            and useful, and certainly provides a useful contribution to the 
            study of both Southeast Asian literature and early modern Southeast 
            Asian history. 
            M. W. C.