1. Ferrand, who argued for an early date (Ferrand, G., ‘Malaka, le Malayu et Malayur’, Journal Asiatique, He série, tome XI, 1918, pp. 391–484Google Scholar, & tome XII, 1918, pp. 51–154), see Rouffaer, G.P., ‘Was Malaka emporium voor 1400 A.D. genaamd Malajoer? En waar lag Woerawari, Ma-Hasin, Langka, Batoesawar? (Met terreinschetsen van Djambi, oud-Singhapoera, en de Djohor-Rivier)’, Bijdragén tot de Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indiē, deel 77, 1921, pp. 1–174 & 359–604.Google Scholar

2. Wilkinson, R.J., A History of the Peninsular Malays (Pamphlets on Malay Subjects, 1920), pp 31–37Google Scholar; Wilkinson, R.J., ‘The Malacca Sultanate’, Journal of the, Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (JMBRAS), XII, 2, 1935, pp. 22–33Google Scholar; Winstedt, R.O., ‘A History of Johore (1365–1895 A.D.)’, JMBRAS, X, 3, 1932, pp. 5–11Google Scholar; Winstedt, R.O., ‘A History of Malaya’, JMBRAS, XIII, 1, 1935, pp. 37–44.Google Scholar

3. Winstedt, R.O., ‘The Malay Founder of Medieval Malacca’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, (BOAS) XII, 3 & 4, 1948, pp.726–29Google Scholar; Winstedt, R.O., The Malays. A Cultural History (fifth edition, London 1958), p. 34Google Scholar; Coedès, G., Les états hindouisés d'Indochine et d'Indonésie (Paris 1948), pp. 408–11Google Scholar; Hall, D.G.E., A History of South-East Asia (London 1955), pp. 180–81Google Scholar; Harrison, B., South-East Asia (London 1954), p.56.Google Scholar

4. References to the Shellabear edition and the Raffles MS are to Shellabear, W.G., (editor), Sejarah Melayu (fifth edition, in Arabic script, Singapore 1924)Google Scholar and Winstedt, R. O. (editor), ‘The Malay Annals or the Sejarah Melayu’, JMBRAS. XVI, 3, 1938Google Scholar.

The relationship of the two versions is discussed by Winstedt (op.cit.,) and Dr. Emeis (Emeis, M.G., ‘Raffles MS No. 18’, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde, deel 105, 1949, pp. 461–70)Google Scholar. The view of both scholars that the Raffles MS is the more historically accurate is not supported by an examination of the chapters dealing with the events of the early reigns.

5. Wilkinson, R.J., (editor), Bustanu's-Salatin (2 vols, Singapore 1900)Google Scholar. Reference in this essay is to chapter III, in roman script, in Winstedt, R.O., ‘The Genealogy of Malacca's Kings from a copy of the Bustan'us-Salatin’, Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (JSBRAS), No. 81, 1920, pp.39–47.Google Scholar

6. References are to Birch, W. de Gray, (editor). The Commentaries of the Great Afonso Dalboquerque (4 vols, Hakluyt Society, series 2, Nos. 53,55,62,69, 1875–1884)Google Scholar; Cortesao, A., (editor), The Suma Oriental of Tomé Pires and The Book of Francisco Rodrigues (2 vols, Hakluyt Society, series 2, Nos. 89 & 90, 1944)Google Scholar; Barros, J. de,… Asia … dos feitos que os portugueses fizeram no descrobimento e conquista dos mares e terras do Oriente, edited by Cicade, H., 4 vols, Lisbon 1945–1946Google Scholar; Dames, M.L., (editor), The Book of Duarte Barbosa (2 vols, Hakluyt Society, series 2. No.s 44 & 45, 1921)Google Scholar; Mills, J.V., ‘Eredia's description of Malacca, Meridional India and Cathay’ JMBRAS, VIII, I, 1930, pp. 1–288Google Scholar; the translated extracts from Correia, G., Lendas da India, and Couto, D. de, …Asia…Google Scholar, in Ferrand, G., ‘Malaka, le Malayu et Malayur’, Journal Asiatique, He serie, tome XI, 1918, at pp. 438–46Google Scholar. These works are hereafter cited as Commentaries, Suma Oriental, Barros, Duarte Barbosa, Eredia, Correia, and Couto.

7. References to the Ming-shih and the Ying-yai Sheng-lan are to the translated extracta in Groeneveldt, W.P., ‘Notes on the Malay Archipelago and Malacca copied from Chinese Sources’, Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen, XXXIX, 1880, pp. 1–44Google Scholar, hereafter cited as Groeneveldt. Reference to the Hsing-ch'a Sheng-lan is to the translated extract in Rockhill, W. W., ‘Notes on the relations and trade of China with the Eastern Archipelago and the coast of the Indian Ocean during the fourteenth century’, part II, T'oung Pao, 16, 1915, at pp. 117–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar, hereafter cited as Rockhill.

8. Blagden, C.O., ‘The Medieval Chronology of Malacca’, Actes du Onzième Congrès International des Orientalistes, deuxième section (Paris 1898), pp. 239–53.Google Scholar

9. The last eight chapters of the Raffles MS were published by Dr Blagden in 1925 (Blagden, C.O., An Unpublished Variant Version of the “Malay Annals”, JMBRAS, III, 1, 1925, pp.10–52)Google Scholar. The whole work was first published by Sir Richard Winstedt in 1938 (see footnote 4). The Bustan al-Salatin was published by R. J. Wilkinson in 1900, and part was again published in Roman script in 1920 by Winstedt (see footnote 5).

10. Winstedt, R.O., ‘A History of Malaya’, JMBRAS, XIII, 1, 1935, p. 260Google Scholar. Wilkinson in 1920 suggested Paramisura Mohamed Shah — 1403 — ca. 1414; Iskandar Shah; Sri Maharaja Ahmad, Mohamed Shah; Sultan Muzaffar Shah (Raja Kassim) Wilkinson, R.J., A History of the Peninsular Malays, pp. 31–37)Google Scholar. Rouffaer in 1921 proposed 1. Parameswara ca. 1396–1414; 2. Megat (?) Sekandar (??) Shah (Raja Ahmad?) ca. 1414–1424; 3. Maharaja (Sultan??) Mohamed Shah ca. 1424–1444/50; [3a. Sultan Abu Shaiad?? (Sri Parameswara.…. Shah?) ca. 1445–1450??] 1. Sultan Muzaffar Shah ra. 1450–1458 (Rouffaer, op. cit., pp. 587–88)Google Scholar.

11. Commentaries, vol. III, pp. 72–79Google Scholar; Suma Oriental, vol. II, pp. 299–46Google Scholar; Eredia, part I, ch. 1; Ming-shih book 325 (See Groeneveldt, , p. 131).Google Scholar

12. Raffles MS chs. VI & VII.

13. Blagden emends this to read Mu-kan-sa-kan-ti-eul-sha (Blagden, C.O., The Medieval Chronology of Malacca', Actes du Onzième Congress International des Orientalistes, deuxième section, pp. 245–46.Google Scholar

14. In 1414 and 1424 the king went in person to the imperial court. Officials of Cheng-ho's fleet give 1415 as the date of Megat Iskandar Shah's visit (see Duyvendak, J.J.L., ‘The true Dates of tha Chinese Maritime Expeditions in the early fifteenth Century’, T'oung Pao, 34, 1938, pp. 348CrossRefGoogle Scholar & 353–54 and Hsing-Ch'a Sheng-lan, Rockhill, p. 118)Google Scholar, a mistake which can be explained by the fact that the fleet returned in August 1415, and thus was absent from China at the time of Megat Iskandar Shah's arrival.

15. Shellabear edition ch. XII; Raffles MS, ch. VII.

16. Stutterheim, W.F., ‘A Malay Shai'r in Old-Sumatran characters of 1380 A.D.’, Acta Orientalia, XIV, 1936, pp. 268–79.Google Scholar

17. Winstedt, R.O. ‘The Malay Founder of Medieval Malacca’, BSOAS, XII, 3 & 4, 1948, pp. 726–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Winstedt, R.O., ‘Did Pasai rule Kedah in the XIVth Century?’, JMBRAS, XVIII, 2, 1940, p. 150.Google Scholar

18. Winstedt, R.O., ‘The Malay Founder of Medieval Malacca’, BSOAS, XII, 3 & 4, 1948, pp. 726–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. ibid. The Ming-shih gives 1403 as the date of the despatch of the first Chinese embassy which visited Malacca.

20. ibid.

21. Stein Callenfels, P.V. van, ‘The Founder of Malacca’, JMBRAS, XV, 2, 1937, pp. 160–66.Google Scholar

22. Coedès, G., Les états hindouisés d'Indochine et d'Indonésie, pp. 408–11Google Scholar. See also Hall, D.G.E., A History of South-East Asia, pp. 180–81.Google Scholar

23. Barros, dec. II, book VI, ch. 1.

24. Commentaries, Vol. III, pp. 72–73Google Scholar; Suma Oriental, Vol. II, p. 231.Google Scholar

25. Callenfels, Stein, op. cit.Google Scholar

26. Schrieke, B., Indonesian Sociological Studies, Part Two. Ruler and Realm in Early Java (The Hague and Bandung 1957), pp. 31–33.Google Scholar

27. Winstedt, R.O., ‘A History of Malaya’, JMBRAS, XIII, 1, 1935, p. 38Google Scholar. This was also Rouffaer's view. See Rouffaer, op. cit., p. 27.Google Scholar

28. The account which Pires gives substantiates the identification with Bhra Hyang Wicesa. Pires gives a garbled and incomplete list of Batara Tamaral's predecessors down to ‘Sam Agy Jaya Taton’. On the death of this ruler without male issue the people set up two chief ministers and made one of them king. This was ‘Sam Agy’, alias Batara Tamaral, who was succeeded by ‘Batara Curipan’, in whose reign “a quarter of the land of Java rose up in revolt and a mandarin rose up and called himself Biatara Caripanan” and “a quarter of the land of Java was lost”. After carrying the king-list down to the time of writing, Pires returns to the story of the expulsion of Parameswara by Batara Tamaral and the subsequent resumption of friendly relations between this king and the Malacca dynasty during the reigns of Parameswara, and Shah, Iskandar (Suma Oriental, vol. II, p. 230)Google Scholar.

‘Sam Agy Jaya Taton’ apparently stands for Java-Katwang, the usurper who overthrew Krtanagara in 1292 and was in turn replaced by Krtanagara's son Krtarajasa in 1294 (see Graaf, H.J. de, ‘Tome Pires’ “Suma Oriental” en het tijdperk van godsdientsovergang op Java', Bijdragen tot de Taal—, Land — en Volkenkunde, deel 108, 1952, p. 136)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, but it is probable that the ruler meant is Jayanagara, the second Majapahit emperor who died without male issue and was succeeded by his sister Tribhuwana, whose husband and consort was Krtawardhana, (the second ‘chief minister’ is probably a reference to Gajah Mada, patih of Majapahit from 1331 to 1364), but this prince, who died in 1386, cannot have been the Batara Tamaral who expelled Parameswara and was still living in the time of Megat Iskandar Shah. This must have been Bhra Hyang Wicesa (Wikramawardhana), in whose reign the dynastic war occurred and who appears in the Suma Oriental as ‘Batara Curipan’ (Hyang Wicesa, like Krtawardhana, owed his position to marriage with the female heir, in this case the crown princess Kusumawardhana, daughter of Ayam Wuruk. See Schrieke, op. cit., p. 39)Google Scholar. ‘Batara Tamaral’ in fact appears to be a partial amalgamation of three rulers: Bhre Tumapel, the consort of Tribhuwana (1329–1350); the unmentioned Ayam Wuruk (1350–1389); and Bhra Hyang Wicesa (1389–1428), who is referred to in the Ming-shih as ‘king of Tumapel’ (Ming-shih, book 325. See Groeneveldt, , p. 36).Google Scholar

29. Barros, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

30. Schrieke, op. cit., pp. 39–40.Google Scholar

31. Commentaries, vol. III, p. 73Google Scholar; Suma Oriental, vol. II, p.231Google Scholar; Eredia, pt. I, ch. 26. Eredia states that Parameswara was a Javanese from Palembang, and that he was expelled for defying his father-in-law, the emperor of Java, fled to Singapore, was expelled from Singapore after having assassinated the local ruler and then founded Malacca.

32. Shellabear edition, ch. X; Raffles MS, ch. VI; Bustan al-Salatin, ch. III.

33. It is noteworthy that Correla gives a condensed version of the story in the Commentaries and the Suma Oriental, in which Parameswara is placed in Java as a result of the abbreviation. Correia states that he was a rich man in the land of Java who rebelled against his father-in-law, who was a great lord, was defeated and fled to found Malacca (Correia, , vol. II, p. 221).Google Scholar

34. The Raffles MS states that Parameswara ruled at Singapore for three years, founded Malacca two years after his expulsion from Singapore and ruled a further twenty years at Malacca (Raffles MS, ch. VI). Albuquerque gives five and seven years for the reigns at Singapore and Malacca (Commentaries, vol. III, pp. 74–77)Google Scholar and Pires gives five years for the reign at Singapore and six years as the time between the expulsion from Singapore and the foundation of Malacca (Suma Oriental, vol. II, p. 232)Google Scholar. Apart from the fact that they are contradictory, these figures cannot be taken literally, but within the context they indicate the passage of a number of years between the expulsion from Palembang and the founding of Malacca.

35. Ming-shih, book 325. See Groeneveldt, p. 130.Google Scholar

36. Rafflles MS, chs. VI, VII, VIII, XIV & XXVIII.

37. The three year visit was that of 1433 (Ming-shih, book 325. See Groeneveldt, p. 131).Google Scholar

38. Raffles MS, chs. VI & VII.

39. Shellabear edition, ch. XI; Bustan al-Salatin, ch. III.

40. Shellabear edition, ch. XI; Raffles MS, ch. VI; Bustan al-Salatin, ch. III.

41. Couto, the only Portuguese writer who does not confuse the identity of the second and third kings (he confuses instead the third and fourth kings and misplaces Sultan Muzaftar), gives the second king's personal name as Menawar (Couto, dec. II, book VI, ch. 1).

42. Pelliot and Groeneveldt give Pai-li-mi-sou-la and Pai-li-su-ra respectively, with a variation in the Chinese characters, as the name in the Ming-shih (Pelliot, P., ‘Les grands voyages maritime chinois au début du XVe siècle’, T'oung Pao 30, 1933, p. 397CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Groeneveldt, p. 129)Google Scholar. Duyvendak notes Si-li-pa-erh-su-la as a variant in the Huang-ming Ts'ung-hsin-lu, a work of the sixteenth century, (Duyvendak, J.J.L., ‘The true Dates of the Chinese Maritime Expeditions in the early fifteenth Century’. T'oung Pao, 34, 1938, p. 366, footnote 3)CrossRefGoogle Scholar This variant occurs also in the Tung-hsi Yang-kao (see Rockhill, p. 114, footnote 1).Google Scholar

43. A contemporary of Megat Iskandar Shah was the pretender Iskandar Shah of Samudera, ca. 1412–1414. (Ying-yai Sheng-lan and Mingh-shih, book 32. See Groeneveldt, , pp. 86 & 89).Google Scholar

44. See Friedlander, J., Die Chadirlegende and der Alexanderroman (Leipzig 1913)Google Scholar; Leeuwen, P.J. van, De Maleische Alexanderroman (Meppel 1937)Google Scholar; Winstedt, R.O., ‘The Date, Authorship, Contents and Some New MSS of the Malay Romance of Alexander the Great’, JMBRAS, XVI, 2, 1938, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar

45. The descent is traced explicitly through the kings of Palembang. According to the Malay Annals, Nila Utama, the first king of Singapore, from whom the descent of the Malacca dynasty is derived, was the son of Sang Sapurba, king of Palembang, whose descent is traced from Iskandar dzul-Karnain. A more immediately apparent claim to descent from Iskandar dzul-Karnain is implied in the descent from Iskandar Shah of Bentan, whose daughter Nila Utama is said to have married. This Iskandar Shah may well have been an historical figure. The Annals record the tradition that he went to the land of the Shams and was the first (Malay) ruler to use the nobat, the sacred kettle-drum which is the principal item of Malay regalia (Shellabear edition, ch. II; Raffles MS, ch. III).

46. Commentaries, vol. III, pp. 77–79Google Scholar; Suma Oriental, vol. II, p. 239.Google Scholar

47. The 10th month of the 1st yesr of Yung-lo, corresponding to October 1403, was the date of the imperial order. The envoy probably did not reach Malacca until the second half of 1404.

48. Ming-shih, books 304 & 325 (see Groeneveldt, , pp. 43 & 129)Google Scholar. The Ying-yai Sheng-lan and the Hsing-ch'a Sheng-lan wrongly state that the monument and the regalia were taken to Malacca in 1409 by Cheng-ho (Ying-yai Sheng-lan & Hsing-ch'a Sheng-lan. See Groeneveldt, , p. 123Google Scholar & Rockhill, , p. 118).Google Scholar

49. Ming-shih, book 325. See Groeneveldt, , pp. 129–30.Google Scholar

50. Wheatley, P., The; Golden Khersonese (Kuala Lumpur 1961), pp. 301–05.Google Scholar

51. Commentaries, vol. III, p 74; Suma Oriental, vol. II, p. 232Google Scholar; Barros dec. II, book VI, ch. 1.

52. Ming-shih, book 325. See Groeneveldt, , p. 129.Google Scholar

53. Shellabear edition, ch. X; Bustan al-Salatin, ch. III; Suma Oriental, vol. II, p. 238.Google Scholar

54. Ming-shih, book 325. See Groeneveldt, , p. 130.Google Scholar

55. ibid, (see Groeneveldt, , pp. 130–31Google Scholar; Barros, , loc.cit.)Google Scholar

56. Barros, , loc. cit.Google Scholar; Barbosa, Duarte, vol, II, pp. 169–72.Google Scholar

57. Barbosa, Duarte, val. pp. 162–72.Google Scholar

58. Stutterheim, W.F., ‘A Malay Sha'ir in Old-Sumatran characters of 1380 A.D., Acta Orientalin, XIV, 1936, pp. 268–79.Google Scholar

59. Paterson, H.S., ‘An early Malay inscription from Trengganu’. and Blagden, C.O., ‘A note on the Trengganu Inscription’, JMBRAS, II, 3, 1924, pp. 252–63.Google Scholar

60. Whaeatley, , op.cit., pp. 68–70.Google Scholar

61. Hill, A.H., (editor), ‘Hikayat Raja-Raja Pasai’, JMBRAS, XXXIII, 2, 1960, pp. 66–68Google Scholar; Shellabear edition, ch. VIII: Raffles MS, ch. VI.

62. Pelliot, P., ‘Les grands voyage maritimes chinois au début du XVe siècle’, T'oung Pao, 30, 1933, pp. 241–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

63. ibid., pp. 398–400.

64. Ying-yai Sheng-lan (See Groeneveldt, , p. 123)Google Scholar. Rockhill's text omits reference to the king and reads: “in their usages they revere the doctrine of the Muslims, observing its fasts and penances” (Rockhill, , p. 115).Google Scholar

65. The reference to Cheng-ho's ships is an addition at the end of the section on Malacca. There is no evidence that additional material was introduced into the body of the section, in which the reference to Islam occurs.

66. From the Arabic meaning ‘meeting place’, ‘rendezvous’. This derivation is noted in the Malay Annals (Shellabear edition, ch. XI), together with a more romantic account of how Malacca was named. According to this ‘Malaka’ was the name of a tree under which Parameswara happened to be standing when he decided to found his city (Shellabear edition, ch. XI; Raffles MS, ch. VI).

67. Suma Oriental, vol. II, 237–38Google Scholar; Barros, dec. II, book VI, ch. I.

68. ibid.

69. Shellabear edition, ch. X; Bustan al-Salatin, ch. III.

70. Shellabear edition, ch. XXXII; Raffles MS, ch. XX.

71. Couto gives Megat Iskandar Shah's name as Menamar (Couto, dec. IV, book II. ch. 1). An analogous case is the confusion concerning the successor to Sultan Mansur Shah. According to the Shellabear edition and the Bustan al-Salatin this was his on Raja Hussain (Shellabear edition, ch. XXIII; Bustan al-Salatin, ch. III), but the Raffles MS states that the succession went to another son, Raja Radin (Raffles MS ch. IX). It would appear that the author of the Raffles MS is mistaken and that the error arises from the confusion of Raja Radin with another prince, whose name is given as Raja Radin in the Bustan al-Salatin and Raja Ali in the Shellabear edition (Bustan al-Salatin, ch. III; Shellabear edition, ch. XXXIV), who succeeded the last Sultan of Malacca, Mahmud Shah, and who like Sultan Mansur Shah's successor took the regnal name Ala'u'd-din Riayat Shah.

72. The Ming-shih records that Parameswara claimed authority over Palembang about the time the Javanese war of succession ended (Ming-shih, book 324. See Groenveldt, , p.37).Google Scholar

73. Shellabear edition, ch. XI; Raffles MS, ch. VI.

74. In the Raffles MS all the Malacca rulers are called sultan. In the Shellabear edition and the Bustan al-Salatin Mohamed Shah is the first to be so styled. On the other hand Muzaffar Shah is the first to be called sultan in the accounts of Portuguese authorities, Albuquerque, Eredia, Couto and Pires.

75. Commentaries, vol. III, p.77Google Scholar; Suma Oriental, vol. II, pp. 239–42.Google Scholar

76. Hill, A.H., (editor), ‘Hikayat Raja-Raja Pasai’, JMBRAS, XXXIII, 2, 1960, pp. 55–59Google Scholar; Strurrock, A.J., ‘Hikayat Marong Maha Wangsa’, JSBRAS. No. 72, 1916Google Scholar

77. Shellabear edition, ch. XI; Raffles MS, ch. VI.

78. Shellabear edition, ch. XII; Raffles MS, ch. VII.

79. Wilkinson, R.J. ‘The Malacca Sultanate’, JMBRAS, XIII, 2, 1935, pp. 35–36.Google Scholar

80. Despite his alleged great age Tun Ali lived to bury his young wife and father children by her successor. He died in the reign of Mansur Shah (ca. 1459–1477), being probably less than fifty years of age (see Shellabear edition, ch. XVI; Raffles MS, ch. IX).

81. It may have some serious purpose. The suggestion that Tun Ali was unnaturally old for marriage emphasises, as does the fact that Raja Kassim divorced Tun Kudu in order that he might marry her, the importance of the marriage ai a symbol of the reconciliation of the two great families, discussed below.

82. Raffles MS, ch. VII.

83. ibid.

84. ibid., ch. VIII.

85. Shcllabear edition, ch. XII.

86. Bustan al-Salatin, ch. III.

87. Shellabear edition, ch. XI; Bustan al-Salatin, ch. III.

88. Their names are given in the Shellabear edition as Raja Kechil Mambang and Raja Mekat (Shellabear edition, ch. XI). The Raffles MS mentions only one and gives his name as Raja Bambang (Raffles MS, ch. VI.

89. Shellabear edition, ch. XII; Raffles MS, ch. VII.

90. Moreover, alone among the children of the third king, the grandsons of the Bendahara lack Moslem names. See footnote 88.

91. Shellabear edition, ch. XII; Raffles MS, ch. VII. In the Bustan al-Salatin his name is given as Raja Hitam (Bustan al-Salatin, ch. III).

92. Ming-shih, book 325. See Groeneveldt, , p.131.Google Scholar

93. Shellabear edition, ch. XI; Raffles MS, ch. VI.

94. Raffles MS, ch. VII.

95. ibid. The Shellabear edition agrees with the Raffles MS, but omits mention of Tun Ali as śri Nara DiRaja and ascribes all the stories concerning him to Tun Perpateh Besar (Shellabear edition, ch. XII).

96. Raffles MS, ch. VIII. The quotation is from Brown, C.C., (editor), ‘Sejarah Melayu or ‘Malay Annals’. A translation of Raffles MS 18. JMBRAS, XXV, 2 & 3, 1952.Google Scholar

97. Shellabear edition, ch. XII; Raffles MS, ch. VII.

98. Commentaries, vol. III, p.79Google Scholar; Suma Oriental, vol. II, pp. 242–46.Google Scholar

99. ibid. Muzaffar Shah is also the first to be styled sultan in the kinglists given by Eredia and Couto (Eredia, pt I, ch. 1; Couto, dec.IV, book II, ch. 1).

100. His name appears in the Ming-shih as Su-lu-tan Wu-ta-fa-na-sha (Ming-shih, book 325. See Groeneveldt, , p.131).Google Scholar

101. In the Annals the name is explained to mean “he who is preserved by God from his enemies”. (Raffles MS, ch. VIII).