A CHAIN OF KINGS - Books and Journals

24
A chain of kings
vidual terms. This indicates an aural element in the writing process, as these
variations would not occur if a solitary scribe was focused on transferring
the written symbols from one manuscript to another. Other aspects of the
manuscripts, such as the haphazard placement of stops (.) within the texts,
include changes in handwriting that do not correspond to a narrative break
or transition, and the inconsistent use of glides (‘wa’ or ‘ya’ for the single
vowel ‘a’) also indicates that transmission of the Makassarese chronicles was
oral and aural.
Oral composition, however, does not mean that the chronicles were orally
recited as part of a performance tradition. We have little evidence to indicate
that Makassarese ever read patturioloang aloud for either their entertainment
or didactic value. In this they differ considerably from many textual traditions
in the archipelago. It is also in marked contrast to what scholars have noted
of Bugis, particularly La Galigo material, where oral stories and written texts
circulate material back and forth (Pelras 1979; Koolhof 1999). Nevertheless, as
I have argued elsewhere (Cummings 2003), presuming that oral and written
traditions must be interwoven is no less sweeping an assumption than earlier
declarations of their presumed autonomy. Texts are performed on rare occasions
even today at the former royal palace in Gowa (Ballaq Lompoa), but they
are performances of Islamic texts such as the Barzanji. Nor do we have evidence
that patturioloang were ever read aloud to soothe and calm an audience,
as Shelly Errington experienced in Luwuq (1989:49), much less part of the
Malay penglipur lara ‘soother of cares’ tradition. Compared to these other written
traditions, chronicles appear to represent a tradition intentionally more
isolated from other genres, written and oral. The reasons for this are probably
political and social, as rulers sought to possess the past and control its interpretation
to enhance their own status relative to others (Cummings 2002).
From its beginnings at the close of the sixteenth century, the patturioloang
tradition was firmly established by the second quarter of the seventeenth century.
Chroniclers developed a clear sense of what each reign account should
contain and how it should be structured. Yet chronicles were only composed
for a comparatively brief time. The Talloq chronicle texts we possess end with
the reign of Tumammaliang ri Timoroq in 1641, though it would not be surprising
if a text relating the reign of his successor Karaeng Pattingalloang
(ruled 1641 to 1654) came to light. The Gowa chronicle continued through the
reign of Sultan Hasanuddin, who died in 1670 shortly after Gowa’s calamitous
1669 defeat. With his death, chronicle composition ceased. No text has
been found that continues the story of Gowa and Talloq’s rulers. This is
understandable given the disastrous circumstances and ongoing humiliations
their successors suffered for the remainder of the seventeenth and into
the eighteenth centuries. The Gowa and Talloq chronicles, however, continued
to be copied, honoured, and transmitted down to the present day.