# Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society/Volume 86/The Gravestone of Sultan Mansur Shah of Malacca
## The Grave-Stone of Sultan Mansur Shah of Malacca.

By Zainul-Abidin bin Ahmad.
The following suggestions with reference to Mr. J. P. Mo- quette's scholary paper on the above subject translated by Dr. Win- stedt in J.R.A.S., S.B. No. 85 may not be out of place here:—
(a) That the word الرحوم which comes after مظڤرشاه in Mr. Moquette's reading of Plate I be placed immediately before مظڤرشاه; firstly because that is the usual order (i. e, al-marham first and the name of the deceased following) when the expression is used, especially by the Malays; and secondly, seeing that the word الساطان which lies directly above the word (Jawi characters), (see third line in Plate 1) is read before (Jawi characters), it follows that the word الرحوم which lies also directly above the name مظڤرشاه can also be read first. As far as I can judge from the plate, nothing seems to be there that makes it particularly necessary to violate usage and read الرحوم last.
(b) That the reading of (Arabic characters) (dári-’l-ma’ál) be sub- stituted in place of دارامال (dári ámál). For this I have several reasons:-
(1) (Arabic characters) is not compatible, as far as rhythmic flow is concerned, with داراطال with which it ought to correspond; be- cause the latter (i.e. داراطال) has the article أل and the former has not. From a grammatical stand-point there does not appear to be reason enough that داراطال should have the article and (Arabic characters) ​should not. But if, to avoid all this, we use أل and say دارالآمال the clear-cut shape of the word in the inscription does not justify our doing so.
(2) آمال is the plural of أمل, and the word "hope" which is given for the translation can only be suitable if the Arabic is in the singular form. Besides, آمال is pronounced with a long vowel on the first syllable, and thus spoil again any rhythmic agreement with (Arabic characters) of which the first syllable is short.
(3) If the form (Arabic characters) is substituted, the agreement in rhythm with (Arabic characters) is readily established, for the two would then be of the same form (noun of place) derived from roots of the same measure. The combination makes a perfect little rhymed-prose, with apparently punning sound—a feature so commonly prominent in short Arabic maximus and pithy sayings—such as would become any epitaph.
(4) The meaning of (Arabic characters) which is "the abode of return" or "The Final Abode" would just suit (Arabic characters) which is the "abode of change" or "The Transient Abode".
(5) In an inscription where, as in any monogram, the letters and different parts of the words are highly interwoven, it is not uncommon to find that one and the same stroke serves the double purpose of representing two letters of like appearance, or that two or more letters of more or less the same form become blended into one, or even die away in the meshes of loops and flourishes. In this light I think we are quite justified to assume that in the inscription the first "ا" of the word (Arabic characters) is partially blended in the final "ا" of the same word. (See the first line of Plate 11).
No doubt the changes suggested here are not of much consequence. Still I hope they make for some improvement on the reading so far deciphered.
​It might be well also to call attention to the little misprints in spelling, which might be overlooked and might later lead to real mistakes:—
(a) The first (Arabic characters) (as-sultan) in the reading of Plate I should be written (Arabic characters) (tis-sultan) as we find it correctly written in the Romanised reading; and the word (Arabic characters) should read (Arabic characters).
(b) The words (Arabic characters) on page 3 should, I think, read (Arabic characters).
(c) The words (Arabic characters) (lais a'd-dunia.) in the reading of Plate III should read (Arabic characters) (laisa li'd-dunia).
That the "n" of (Arabic characters) and the "r" of Mansur cannot be traced may indeed be due to the mistakes of the mason. So also may the absence of any dots or diacritical points (titek) from the inscription be accounted for. But it is quite possible also that both have their explanation in (b) 5 above, or may have been worn out because of their smallness.
On any other matter regarding this subject, I am not able to form any independent idea; nor have any strong view to express beyond that, in my opinion, the reconstructions are really very ingenious, and the reading certainly much more acceptable than the one which used to be accepted before it.