Thai Novel
Maurice Simmons
Presented for the Degree of Master of Philosophy of the
University of London
(School of Oriental and African Studies)
2005
All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The qu ality of this repro d u ctio n is d e p e n d e n t upon the q u ality of the copy subm itted.
In the unlikely e v e n t that the a u th o r did not send a c o m p le te m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be note d . Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved,
a n o te will in d ica te the deletion.
uest
ProQuest 10731334
Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). C op yrig ht of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C o d e M icroform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346
Abstract
The novel first appeared in T hailand approxim ately one hundred years ago.
B ut for m any years it lacked the cultural prestige o f its W estern counterpart. W hen the first histories o f Thai literature appeared in th e 1950s/Siyjtnade no m ention o f the
Xu.
novel and it was not until the 1960s that the first attempts to record its history w ere m ade. This study plots the m ajor landm arks in charting the history o f the T hai novel in the ensuing thirty years.
Chapter 1 discusses the term s for ‘literatu re’ and the ‘n ov el’ and looks at the first histories o f Thai literature and histories o f Thai literature w ritten in English.
Chapter 2 surveys the w ork o f the first ‘historians’ o f the Thai novel, Y ot W atcharasathian, Prakat W atcharapho’n and Sathian C hanthim atho’n.
Chapter 3 exam ines the contribution o f academics, and in particular, th e works o f Suphanni W aratho’n and Trisin B u n k h ach o ’n.
Chapter 4 presents data based on research into the place o f the novel in tod ay’s educational curriculum in Bangkok.
Chapter 5 looks at two recent m ajor w orks on the Thai novel. - M arcel B aran g ’s The 20 B est Novels o f Thailand and a textbook, Phattanakan W annakhadi Thai.
Contents
p a g e
Abstract 2
Acknowledgements 4
Introduction 5
Chapter
I Histories o f Thai literature 6
II Writing on the novel outside academia 36 III The academic world and the Thai novel 53 IV The Thai novel and the educational curriculum 83
V Recent writing on the Thai novel 126
Bibliography J 144
Acknowledgments
I w ould like to thank the following people fo r their help and generosity:
in Thailand, D r T risin B unkhacho’n, D r S uw anna Krianglcraiphet, Dr K lairung A m ratisha and D r Soison Sakolrak, all from C hulalongkorn U niversity; and in France, the follow ing m em bers o f the Ecole Franpaise d ’Extrem e-O rient, M. P-B.
Lafont, M. J.L. Taffarelli, M. L. Gabaude a n d M m e J. Filliozat, and M m e E.
V ernier from the B ibliotheque N ationale de France. M y eternal thanks go to Dr David Smyth, for his guidance, help and friendship over the years.
This thesis is dedicated to m y parents, m y com panion in life, M ile Christel R edon and our children, M ilan, Roman, A mbre and M arin.
M. Simm ons a Agde. Juin 2005
Introduction
A lthough the novel first appeared in Thailand approxim ately one hundred years ago, the genre has never enjoyed the cultural prestige it does in the W est and other parts o f Asia, such as India and Japan. K now ledge about the T hai novel - the great w riters, the m ajor w orks, a sense o f th e chronology and developm ent o f the genre - is largely absent in even w ell-educated Thais. Over the last fifty years a
r
num ber o f com m itted individuals have attem pted to rectify this gap in cultural
know ledge by tracing the genealogy o f the gen re and bestow ing cultural valu e upon it.
One m ajor piece o f evidence o f the success o f their endeavours can be seen b y the fact that the novel is now form ally taught as part o f the literature curriculum in schools and universities; elsew here, (but n o t covered in this thesis) literary prizes and awards (such as ‘National A rtis t’) offer further p ro o f that the novel is slow ly m oving tow ards cultural acceptance and respect.
This thesis looks at the m ajor works on the history o f the Thai novel, w hich have helped to change attitudes tow ards the genre. It is addressed prim arily to> the
* W estern'student o f the Thai novel, and aims to provide an insight into Thai perceptions o f the novel and the study o f the novel in Thailand.
Time and linguistic lim itations have played a greater part in shaping th is thesis than I envisaged at the outset. N evertheless, for all its shortcom ings, I hope thus thesis w ill provide the interested reader w ith an understanding o f the historiography o f the T hai novel, and perhaps even a foundation for further research.
/
CHAPTER ONE
HISTORIES OF THAI LITERATURE
Wannakhadi and wannakam
Before looking at the w ay in w hich the no vel has b een represented in Thai literary historiography, it is im portant to look at the Thai term s for ‘literatu re’ and the
‘no vel’.
The English word ‘literature’, in the sense o f ‘creative w o rks’, can be rendered in Thai by two different, but related w ords, w annakhadi and wannakam. Both w ords are 20th century coinings; wannakhadi first appeared in 191-4, w hile as recently as
1950 (and in m any reprints thereafter), w annakam w as not included in the Royal Institute Dictionary. O f bilingual dictionaries, Pallegoix (1854) predictably lists neither, while M cFarland (1944) has only w an nakhadi, w hich is glossed as ‘literature, poetical com positions.’ Haas (1964) and So Sethapiutra, w hose first Thai-English dictionary dates from 1965, include both w ords, andl sim ilar glosses o f w annakhadi as
‘literature’, and wannakam as ‘a literary w o rk ’; these definitions are repeated by m ore recent lexicographers, such as Thianchai (1993) and D om nern and Sathienpong (1 9 9 4 ).1 The m ost recent edition o f the R oyal Institute Dictionary, first published in
1 Photchcinanukrom chabap ratchabanthitsathan, Bangkok: Royal Institute, 1950, p .823; Pallegoix, J-B , Diclionariiun linguae-that sivie siam ensis; interpretatione latina, gallica et anglica issustratum, Parisiis, Jussu imperaitoris im pressum in typographeo im peratorio., 1854. (Repr. Farnsworth, England: G regg International Publ., Ltd., 1972;
wannakam is a broad term, em bracing all kin d s o f writing, regardless o f w hether it is
w ritten in prose or verse, or the form in w hich it is published, and the term ‘even includes com puter p ro g ram m es’; w annakhadi is m eanwhile defined as ‘wannakam w hich has been praised as being w ell-w ritten and having artistic value . . . ,2 The definition o f wannakam makes no reference to the quality o f the w riting, but the im plication in the definition o f w annakhadi, is that any piece o f w annakam ,
regardless o f w hether it. is w ritten in prose o f verse, has the potential to be regarded as w annakhadi. However, to m ost Thai scholars o f literature, it w ould be absurd to
categorize any Thai novel, no m atter how w ell-w ritten it m ight be, as w annakhadi; for m ost Thais, this w ord can only be used for th e ancient texts, predom inately classical poetry, w hich w ere w ritten over the centuries in the Thai royal court; and w hich
. i
constitute the canon o f Thai literature.
Before the w ord w annakhadi w as coined, a num ber o f different '/■
expressions were u sed to refer to w ritten w orks. All o f these had a descriptive sense and not an evaluative one. The following three expressions in p articular w ere current at that time: the first used the w ord n a n g su ' ( ‘parchm ent, docum ent, w riting, letters, books, te x ts’) before the title o f a w ork such as, N angsu' M ahapharata ( ‘The
M ahabarata’); the second brought together the author's name, the type o f poetic verse
M cFarland, G.B., Thai-English D ictionary, 2nd ed., Stanford, California: Stanford U niversity Press, 1944, p. 762; Haas, M .R., Thai-English S tu d e n t’s D ictionary, Stanford, California: Stanford U niversity Press, 1964, p. 499; So Sethaputra, N ew M odel Thai-English D ictionary, (Desk Edition) Bangkok: Thai W attana Panich, 1975, p.372; Thianchai Iamworam et, A N ew Thai D ictionary with B ilingual Explanation, Bangkok: Ruam San, 1993, p. 1042; D om nem G arden and Sathienpong W annapok,
Thai-English D ictionary, Bangkok: A m arin Printing and Publishing pel., 1994, p. 462.
2 Photchananukrom chabap ratchabanthitsathan p h o r sor 2542, Bangkok: Royal Institute, 2000, p. 1054-5
P hrayatrang ( ‘Phrayatrang's K long N ira t’); the third coupled together the nam e o f the
event, w hich was the subject o f the poem , w ith the type o f verse used, for instance K lo'n N irat R o p T h a D in D aeng ( ‘K lo ’n N irat o f the Battle o f Red E arth ’).3
.
| W *
The w ord w annakhadi w as coined to correspond to 'literature' in English as part o f the nam e o f a literary society, W annakhadi sam oso'n ( ‘The
Literature Society’) that was founded by R am a VI on 23 July 1914. It was a fusion o f w anna, a Sanskrit w ord m eaning ‘to w rite on p ap er’, and khadi m eaning ‘w ay, story,
account, case'’; in T hai.4 A t first it was o n ly used in the Society's name, and n o t in its docum ents, w here nangsu' was used to re fe r to texts in general. In the case o f texts which- the Society felt w ere well w ritten, o n e o f tw o expressions was em ployed, either n a n g su ' di (a good book) or nangsu' ta en g d i (a well w ritten book).5 A lthough
w annakhadi was not used at this stage to refer to writing, through the activities o f the
'Literature Society' a strong association b etw een it and 'good' w riting began to be form ed, •
W
3 C honlada R u'angraklikhit, ‘W annakhadi w ichan raw ang 2325-2453’ in T h o ' m aksai nam 200 p i wannakhadi wichan thai, 2nd ed., edited by Chonlada Ru'angraklikhit*
R u'nru'thai Satacaphan and Duangm on Ciittacamnong, Bangkok: Praphansat, 1998, p .15.
4 De Fels, J. Prom otion de la Litterature en Thailande: Vers les Prix L itteraires (1882-1982), Tom e 1, Paris: INALCO, 1993, p.159.
5 T risin B unkhacho’n, Phattanakan kan s u ’ksa khon khwa lae wichai wannakhadi th a i, Bangkok:Faculty o f Arts, C hulalongkom University, 1987, p.2
Ram a VI, like m any o f his roy al predecessors, was a w riter, or m ore precisely a dram atist, poet, essayist and tran slato r o f w estern novels.6 H e took a genuine interest in contem porary Thai w riting a n d the use o f the Thai language in it. It was partly due to a w ish to defend standards in w ritten Thai that he created the
'Literature Society1. Its objectives w ere in flu enced by those o f an earlier society, B orankhadi sam oso'n (A rchaeological Society), w hich had been established in 1907
by R am a V. The A rchaeological Society w as disbanded in 1910 after his death, with m uch o f its intended w ork unfinished. R am a V I se t up the 'Literature Society' to carry out his father's project to rew ard, prom ote an d pu b lish w ell-w ritten Thai works. The King hoped to counteract deteriorating standards in the w ritten Thai language by creating m odels o f'g o o d ' w riting for w riters to fo llo w .7 The problem w ith
contem porary Thai w riting for both Ram a V and h is son Ram a VI w as that w riters used language that w as too close to colloquial T h ai in their works, they disregarded social conventions and m oreover they translated foreign texts often copying the sentence structures o f the original language.8
The K ing was the president o f the 'L iterature Society's' com m ittee, w hich was m ade up o f m em bers o f the com m ittee o f the W achirayan Library.9 The Society was founded on ten clauses, w hich set o u t its structure, rules, and objectives.
Clause num ber seven listed five categories o f w riting under w hich the best exam ples o f texts w ould be selected by the Comm ittee and aw arded its seal depicting the Hindu
6 R am a VI translated popular western novels, for exam ple, by Sax Rohmer.
7 De Fels, op. cit. p. 160.
8 Dc Pels, op. cit. p. 160. --- 9 De Fels, op. cit. p .224.
god Ganesh. These aw ard w inning w orks, m o dels o f'g o o d ' w riting in each o f their categories, w ould then be published by the Society w ith its seal stam ped on them and m ade available to the public. The fo llow in g are the five literary genres w hich the 'Literature Society' classified Thai w riting in to for the first time:
1.Poetry: khlong, chan, hap, k l o ’n.
2.Theatre, dram a w ritten in Jdo ’n p a e t or in bot na pah.
3.Nithan, tale.in prose.
4.Theatre, spoken drama.
5.Athibai (i.e. an essay or pam phlet) on a science or arts subject, (how ever
excluding school textbooks and the tex ts on archaeology w hich existed in the royal archives).
For a w ork to be considered for an aw ard it had firstly to be judg ed as a 'good text' {nangsu' di) and 'well w ritten' {nangsu' taeng di), by all or at least the m ajority o f the 'Literature Society’s' m em b ers.10 In the v iew o f the Society;'a 'good text' w as one w hich did not adversely affect the m orale o f readers, give them im m oral thoughts and ideas, or moreover incite political agitation, w hich w ould be a problem for the
governm ent or his m ajesty the K ing. For the Society a 'well w ritten text' was,
regardless o f its genre, one that w as in 'good' Thai that conform ed to regulations from the past or the present, and did not resem ble a foreign language.13 Once a text had been selected by the Com m ittee it then had to be subm itted to the King to decide
10 D e Fels op. cit. p .161.
11 D e Fels op. cit. p. 162.
w hether or not it w ould receive the S ociety's seal. In some cases, as well as receiving the seal, an author was rew arded financially b y him.
Betw een 1916 and 1924 the seal o f the 'Literature Society' w as aw arded to the follow ing ten Thai works:
1 .Phra non kham luang, a p o em w ritten b y Ram a VI, around 1914.12
2.Phra Lo \ a poem in lilit verse, thought to have been w ritten betw een the late
1400's and early 1500's by an u n k n o w n author. It received its aw ard for the beauty o f the language used in it an d the originality o f its subject.
3 Sam utthahhot, a poem in chan verse, w hich was begun in the m id
seventeenth century and finished in the nineteenth century. It w as the w ork o f three different authors, Phra M aha R atchakru, then K ing Phra N arai and finally Prince Param anuchit.
4 .M anachat Jdon thet, religious serm ons w ritten in hap verse by several different authors, and o f an un k n o w n date.
5..Khun Chang Khun P haen, a p o e m w ritten in Hon suphap verse b y Ram a II
(1809-1824) and his com m ittee o f poets.
6.Inao, a theatre piece in Hon p a e
l.Sam lcok, ( ‘The Three K ingd om s’), based on a Chinese work, this tale w as
w ritten at the beginning o f the n in eteenth century by Chao Phaya Plira Khlamg.
8 .Plua chai nak rop, (‘The H eart o f a W arrior’), a play w ritten by R am a VI in 1913.
''Converse written by Ram a II.
12 The poem was re-edited by Ram a VI in 1916.
selected b y the 'Literature Society' as the b est text in the category, athibai (essay, pam phlet).
10.M atthanaphatha ru tamnan h a en g d o k k u la p , a play w ritten in chan verse by Ram a V I in 1923.
These ten texts, identified by Ram a V I an d the C om m ittee o f the 'Literature v f •; f ({ ( Society' as the b est exam ples in each literary genre, were a m ixture o f ancient and C I V - { */ m odem works all originating from the Thai royal court. It is perhaps true to say that 1 l'" *J
UL-vPc 1 the intention o f the Society in aw arding its seal to these particular works, had m ore to ?> ,/ . ( do w ith honouring the authors than to creatin g m odels o f good w riting for Thai ^ L / 1 w riters to follow. M ost o f the texts that w ere ch o sen were w ritten in verse, w hich by
the reign o f R am a V was steadily declining in popularity as a genre o f creative writing, as m ore w riters turned to prose fiction to satisfy n ew dem ands for realistic stories. v ^ That said, the im portance o f the older w orks am o ng the ten selected, (i.e. those w ritten before Ram a V cam e to the thrown in 1868), was established in the m inds o f literary historians, and these texts subsequently becam e an integral part o f later histories o f
Thai literature. (
n Ci C h. VVJ
[L> /VV [ / C J ' X J / if j The first book published on the h isto ry o f Thai literature was probably
P arithat haeng w annakhadi thai (Review o f Thai Literature). It dated from 1937 ahd
w as w ritten by the literature scholar Plu’ang na N aldio'n under the pseudonym n, ‘Nai Tam ra na M u'ang T a i5. It covered a period in Thai w riting from the thirteenth century kingdom o f Sukhothai up to the reign o f R am a IV (1851-1868). In Plu'ang's book, the w ord wannakhadi was used in a sim ilar w ay to how/ it is today. He used it to talk
egrai part ot later histories or -
t/'Xu t r r'1 i k P V r h 1
i t j v . t : ;
c ru x ,
C* ' , VA **' j about different genres o f texts (poetry, p ro se, plays, religious serm ons etc) w hich dated from before the reign o f R am a V and w ere w ritten in the royal court. Plu'ang's w ork presented them as the m ajor texts in th e nation's literary history.
y ) f J (v & ^\ l
Though at this tim e the y/6rd w annakhadi was used m uch as it is at present to refer to ancient texts produced b y the Thai court, the definition given o f it w as different to that usually found in m o d em Thai dictionaries. In an introductory section to the 'Review o f Thai Literature' th e em inent Thai scholar, Phraya A num an iy\ t R achatho’n defined wannakhadi as, works w h ich created em otion, aroused the
; ' im agination and entertained, Those w hich w ere not, he added, w ere w orks o f reason, X js,
f / fact or instruction. It is interesting that P hray a A num an's definition o f wannakhadi did U \ J not m ention anything about 'good1 w riting as recent definitions do. M oreover, certain
I V " ' V — • ' / f i
^ w orks in Plu'ang's book such as, K in g R am kham haeng’s stone inscription and the Triphum Phra R u'ang (a treatise on cosm ology), were closer to h is definition o f what VlJ vi
^ ( v , w annakhadi was not, than his definition o f w hat it was.
/ L . .... ., / \ ..
IS
In 1952 Plu'ang p ublished w hat has become the m o st successful history o f Thai literature written, P ra w a t w annakhadi thai samrap naJcsu’Icsa (H istory o f Thai Literature for Students). As the title o f the b oo k suggests, the w o rk s in it were
wannakhadi. They were m uch the same titles as those which ap p eared in Plu'ang's
1937 book 'Review o f Thai Literature'. Plu'ang's work and that o f other historians established them as the m ilestones in Thai literary history. W ritin g in thejff 955. second edition o f 'H istory o f Thai Literature for Students', Plu'ang said th a t the quality {khun som bat) o f these works had stood the test o f time, unlike more recen t works whose
quality had yet to be p ro v ed .13 In terestin g ly this was not som ething that he h a d
previously said about these works in his e a rlie r 1937 book 'Review o f Thai L iterature1, r o ^ For modern Thai literary genres, novels, short stories, modern poetry
• t v "
, f i and other w riting that w as not w an n a kh a d i, the w ord wannakam began to be used. 14
| 1 «
j
i khro rng silapcvlae w annakam , w hich w as p assed in order to m aintain standards in the
!
! arts and literature.15 In 1942 wannakam w a s used by Phibun Songkhram 's nationalist f
regim e in the title o f a governm ent dep artm ent, Sam nak wattanatham thang wannakam (D epartm ent o f Literary C ulture). In a similar way to the 'Literature
Society', it was set up to prom ote the art o f w riting books and m ake literature m ore available to the Thai p u b lic.16 In 1956, b o th wannakhadi and wannakam were, defined in an official docum ent, w hich based their difference in m eaning on the q uality o f writing. In this, docum ent titled, E kkasan w atthanatham kho 'ng khana kam m akan chabap thi 6 (Cultural D ocum ents o f the C ulture Comm ittee N o.6), w annakam was
defined as, written work o f a good standard which had yet toj'selected and classified
1 7 '
into the category o f excellence, w hich w as wannakhadi. \ f
13 Plu'ang na N akho'n , P raw at w annakhadi thai samrap naksu. 'ksa (2nd ed.) Bangkok:
1955, Foreword.
14 The beginnings o f m odern Thai literature can be traced back to around 1874-1875.
It was over these two years that two things changed literature in the kingdom . The first w as the spectacular developm ent in printing, the second w as the appearance o f tw o publications, D arunow at (the first T hai magazine) and The Court (the first Thai new spaper). Both these publications contributed to the rise o f prose in Thailand.
15 Chuan Phetkeo, Kan su ’ksa W annakhadi Thai, Bangkok: 1977, p .8. - 1 16 Ibid.
1 7 ' ""-'t -''
K hw am ruphu'rkfhangs wannakhadi lae wannakam ekk h o 'n g thai by P racak Praphapithayakorn, (D epartm ent o f Thai an d Eastern Languages, Srinakharinw irot University), Bangkok: Srinakharinw irot U niversity, n.d., p .l.
It first appeared/in 1932 iji the title o f a go vernm ent act, PharachabanyafilM um
As already shown, at different tim es in the p ast the m eaning o f
w annakhadi was not the same. At p resent it is usually defined in Thai dictionaries as
'good w riting' or 'well w ritten works'. If the d efinition o f wannakhadi has changed over tim e, the usage o f the w ord has not. It has alw ays been and is still used for the same group o f texts that w ere w ritten in the Thai courts from the thirteenth century up
i to the succession o f R am a Y. These w orks h av e becom e the subjects o f the m ajor
. ■/
histories o f Thai literature.
nawaniyai and ru'ang san
The w ords naw aniyai ( ‘n o v el’) and ru 'a n g sa n ( ‘short story’) were coined to give the Thai language words for the new prose fiction genres w hich started to appear in Thailand at the beginning o f th e tw entieth century. The word ru'ang san w as a direct translation o f 'short story' in English. N aw an iya i on the other hand w as a new w ord created especially for the novel, from naw a m eaning ‘n e w ’, and niyai w hich w ere the traditional tales and legends recited in Thai oral literature. These w ere different from the ja ta ka tales and fables and folk tales w hich w ere called nithan.
c - U i r : : Surprisingly in Thai there exists no equivalent to the English w ord , ^
I *?
'fiction'. This is despite the fact that prose fiction has been the m ost popular form o f \ u
\\ w riting for over a century in Thailand. Fiction is usually translated by one o f three j different expressions in Thai, banthoeng khcidi or ru'ang an ien, w hich both m ean j I
‘recreational/leisure reading’, or r u ’ang som m ut m eaning ‘ficticious/im aginary j stories’. In some Thai/English dictionaries 'novel' is even translated in Thai as ru'ang J
-
an len.
Prince Damrong Rajanuphab and the beginnings of Thai literary historiography
Prince D am rong (1862-1943) has b een described as the founding father o f Thai literary histo rio grap hy .18 Though h e never w rote a com plete history o f Thai literature him self, his view s and w ork on the subject have nonetheless continued to dom inate thinking on it right up until the present.
W hilst director o f the W achirayan Library in 1904, Prince D am rong initiated an am bitious project to restore, conserve and m ake know n to the Thai public ancient works im portant to the nation's literary heritage. His project consisted o f gathering together copies o f ancient hand w ritten m anuscripts, w hich w ere dispersed in various private collections and locations, editing them and then publishing them in the fo nn o f books. The Prince w as driven b y the desire to conserve this heritage in Thailand, and p revent it from falling into th e hands o f w estern co llectors.19 In order to resolve the problem o f a lack o f funds for his project he m ade use o f the Thai custom o f distributing books at crem ation cerem onies. He offered w ealthy families the
opportunity to prin t a biography o f ttheir deceased relative in a published version o f an ancient text, for w hich they w ould p a y the publishing costs.
On the subject o f literature the Prince was perhaps less interested in studying the artistic m erits o f a w o rk than in researching its h isto ry and the life o f its author. During the tim e that he was director o f the W achirayan L ibrary num erous ancient hand w ritten m anuscripts w ere edited and printed as hooks w ith forewords
18 Chetana N agavajara, ‘Literary H istoriography and Socio-C ultural Transformation:
the Case o f T hailand’ in C om parative Literature fro m a Thai P erspective, Bangkok:
Chulalongkorn U niversity Press, 1996. p. 46.
19 Ibid. p.46.
written by him w hich talked about their p articu la r histories. In all he w rote around 199 prefaces to books am ongst w hich th e re w ere some erudite discussions o f the Thai classical poetry genres.20
Prince D am rong created p erio d s for Thai literary history, w hich followed the dates o f m ajor events in Thai history. In general the dates o f these
periods corresponded to the dates o f the rei gns o f kings. In the Prince's view each n ew reign brought with it a new period in the h isto ry o f Thai literature. This approach to dividing literary history w as copied by m a n y later historians. W ith the Prince and his w ork still being accepted as the authoritative voice in the field, Thai literary scholars have not attem pted to go beyond him and create periods in the history o f Thai
literature w hich correspond to the dates o f m a jo r works and changes in trends in
!' . . 21 3 f v T r i ? I
> w ntm g. • • r - !
L { > - v y * ^ • *
J
Prince D am rong's w ork in th e field o f Thai literature and its h isto ry had its strengths-and w eaknesses. He successfully resolved questions about the authorship o f m any ancient works. He also retraced th e history o f the m ain genres o f Thai
classical literature. He how ever m ade m istakes, firstly in the dating o f certain texts,
• !
and secondly in the w ay in w hich he edited m any ancient m anuscripts. B y editing out I J w hat he saw as 'vulgar' passages in works an d rew riting others the Prince created new , j i
i
20 Ibid. p.48.
21 It is this approach to w riting literary history, w hich allows historians to reconstitute the diachronic and synchronic relationships between works. The approach used by Thai literary historians does not allow this. A s the French literary historian, J. R ohou rem arks, '...dates m ust be literary and not political. A war, a change in m onarch does not always give rise to a change in literature.' (L'Histoire Litteraire Objets et
M ethodes, Nathan U niversite, 1996, p.42).
m odified versions o f the ancient texts. U nfortu nately m any Thai schplafs still base
« i * • O '!
their w ork on his edited texts rather than 011 the original m anuscripts.
Prince D am rong was the first im portant writer in the field o f Thai \ literal y history. He pioneered work into com piling and classifying literary genres, as w ell as in prom oting literature and history as form s o f know ledge to b e studied and taught. W ithout his pioneering work p erh ap s no history o f Thai literature w ould have been w ritten.2J W hat he w rote has becom e a principal source o f reference for Thai 1 literary historians, in particular, for Plu'ang n a N akho'n and Paul Schw eisguth, both o f w hose influential histories o f Thai literature ow ed a huge debt to Prince Dam rong.
Plu’ang na Nakho’n and Paul Schweisguth
Two o f the m ost im portant histories o f Thai literature w ere published m the early 1950's. In 1951 Etude sur la L itterature Siam oise w as published by
Frenchm an, Paul Schw eisguth, follow ed a year later by P lu'ang na N akho'n's book P ra w a t wannakhadi thai sam rap naicsu’ksa ( ‘H istory o f Thai L iterature for S tudents’).
N either w ork had the distinction o f being the first history o f T hai literature to appear in print. However in the fifty years since their publication both have proved to be influential works on the subject. Schw eisguth's book, though lim ited to around ju st a thousand copies, is a standard reference for w estern scholars o f Thai literature, w hilst Plu'ang's is one for both Thai and w estern scholars alike on the subject. The content and structure o f these two works are sim ilar as their authors h a d the sa m e v ie w o f
22 T risin Bunkhacho’n, op. cit. p .271-2.
23 Ibid. p .272.
Thai literary history. They divided up the p e rio d s in th e history o f Thai literature in an identical w ay and covered the same w orks a n d w riters. M oreover both Schw eisguth and Plu'ang alm ost totally neglected contem po rary w riters and literary genres (the novel, short story, m odem poetry) in their w ork .
Plu’ang na Nakho’n.
The first published history o f T h ai literature was m ost probably P a rith a t haeng w annakhadi thai (Review o f Thai L iterature, 1937) by ‘N ai Tam ra na M u'ang
T a i’ (Plu'ang's p en name). A ccording to its author, there was no w ork before it in w hich the nation's literature had been co llected together and com piled.24 Plu'ang's w ork was w ritten in two parts; the first co v ere d the p eriod from the beginning o f the Sukhothai period in 1257 to end o f the A y u tth ay a p erio d in 1767, w hile the second part covered the Thonburi period from 1767 th rou gh to the end o f the reign o f R am a IV in 1868. G uided by Prince Dam rong's w o rk , P lu'ang divided his history into eight periods.25 Each new period corresponded e ith e r to a change in succession, the start o f a royal dynasty or the change in location o f th e royal court, from Thonburi to
Bangkok, for instance. Each period w as acco rd in g ly nam ed after a king, a dynasty or an ancient capital city. Plu'ang’s treatm ent o f each period began with a sum m ary o f the m ost notable historical events, followed b y a detailed discussion o f w riters and
24 ‘N ai Tam ra na M u'ang T ai’, Parithat haeng wannakhadi thai (2nd ed.) Bangkok:
Krungthep Bamiakhan, 1941, Foreword.
25 These periods were as follows: Sukhothai (1257-1378), Early A yuthaya (1350- 1628), Phra N aray (1656-1688), Late A y u th ay a (1732-1767), Thonburi (1767-1782), Rattakosin/Phuttthayo'tfa (1782-1809), P hutthaloetla (1809-1824), Ram a III and Ram a IV (1824-1868).
their works, w ith num erous extracts taken fro m a wide range o f the texts to serve as exam ples.
Plu'ang's history did not in clu de any m ention o f oral literature. It focused exclusively on ancient w ritten texts, for w hich there existed recorded
evidence, the texts them selves, and m o reo v er extensive supplem entary inform ation on them and their authors w hich had been p u t tog ether by Prince Damrong. It should be said that literacy in Thailand was for cen tu ries lim ited to the royal court and temples.
The production o f w ritten literature only b eg an to m ove out o f the control o f these tw o locations during the reign o f R am a V (1868-1910), w hen the first steps tow ard creating general public education w ere m ad e and the publishing w orld began to be opened up by entrepreneurs outside o f the royal fam ily circle. Plu'ang's 'Review o f T hai Literature' covered not only literary w orks from the Thai court but all sorts o f w riting that was part o f the royal and national cultural heritage. Some o f these works, though not im portant from an artistic point o f view, w ere im portant from an historical one. One such w ork was Ramkhamhaeng's. stone inscription, w ith w hich P lu’ang began his history. It was, he said, significant as evidence o f the difference betw een the present day language and that o f an ancient period, as well as representing a pure form o f Thai w hich at the time had few borrow ed w ords. The tex t contained im portant historical inform ation, Plu'ang added, about K ing R am kham haeng and the people o f Sukhothai.26
The 'Review o f Thai Literature' was perhaps rather than a history o f literature in Thailand, m ore precisely a history o f the know ledge and culture w hich
26 Ibid p .5-6.
existed in the Thai royal court over a p erio d o f six centuries. It w as a record o f the quality o f that know ledge and culture over this time. Plu'ang's book w as first
published in the late 1930's w hen T hai literature and its history w ere a single subject on the first B.A. degree courses taught at C hulalongkom U niversity.27 It was,
according to its author, w ell-received by students, w hich resulted in it being republished in 1941.28
In 1941 Plu'ang continued to review Thai literature in several articles, w hich were published in the m agazine E kka ch on 29 under the title W annakhadi thai patchuban ( ‘Contem porary Thai L iteratu re’). T hough the last in this series o f articles
covered Thai classical literature, th e earlier ones discussed subjects related to contem porary Thai writing. In these Plu'ang talked about Thailand in a p eriod after Ram a IV, retracing the changes w h ic h happened in the country by discussing, the spread o f printing technology, the start o f w estern style education and new spapers, the creation o f the Royal Library and th e A rcheological Society and the ch ang ing trends in popular fiction. He used the w o rk o f two Thai scholar/writers, T.W .S. W a n a p h o -' and K.S.R. Kulap to speak about th e effects o f w estern influence on aspects o f Thai life.30 Plu'ang later edited and republished the articles which had appeared in
Ekkachon as the third and the fourth parts o f his 'Review o f Thai L iterature'.31
27 The first BA degrees w ere aw arded by this university in 1935. The subject o f the history o f Siamese (Thai) literature appeared as part o f the B.A. program m e in this period. (Prospectus, Faculty o f A rts and Science, Chulalankarana U niversity, 1937-8, p .81.
28 ‘N ai Tam ra na M u ’ang T a i’, op. cit. Foreword, dated 6 June 1941.
29 A w eekly m agazine edited b y S o t Kuramarohit, w hich was largely devoted to publishing serialized novels.
30 T risin Bunkhaco'n, 1987, op.cit. p.54.
In 1952 Plu'ang published h is m o st fam ous book, Prawcit w annakhadi sam rap naksu'ksa ( ‘H istory o f Thai L iterature for S tudents’). It was specifically
intended to be used to study Thai literature in the T hai education system and, ‘as the first system atic exposure to traditional T hai literature * for m any Thais, it play ed a m ajo r role in shaping their tastes.32 H aving b een republished on num erous occasions, it has becom e a standard reference, if not th e reference, for the study o f Thai literary history. For his 1952 book Plu'ang re-used th e structure he had used for his earlier 'R eview o f Thai Literature', again dividing T h a i literary history into eight periods. The m ain difference betw een his two histories w as that th e 1952 one included an extra chapter, {ho tp hiset) in w hich w riting after R a m a IV w as briefly reviewed.
Plu'ang discussed the periods o f w riting in his 1952 history in chronological order. He started each w ith an introduction in which he sum m arized events at the time and outlined the nature o f w riting. For exam ple his introduction to his chapter eight, covering the period.from R am a III to Rama IV begins w ith the follow ing paragraph:
"Increased contact w ith the W est, the nation enters a new era, new literature on the whole copies o ld trends, poetry appears to be in decline, the start o f prose w riting and o f n e w sp a p e rs."33
31 ‘W annakhadi wican raw ang 2475-2500’ b y Ru'nrutlhai Satcaphan, in Chonlada Ru'angraklikhit, Ru'nru'thai Satacaphan and Dmangmon Cittacamnong, op. cit. p. 91.
32 Chetana, op. cit. p .52-3.
33 P lu ’ang, op.cit. p. 475.
Plu'ang then follow ed these introductions w ith discussion o f literature, w riters and w riting. H e ended each chapter w ith a list o f princes who were im portant to Thai histo ry and literature, and another o f the n o tab le events which happened during each o f the eight periods w hich he identified.34
The 'History o f Thai L iterature for Students' was divided into two m ain parts. In the first Plu'ang w rote about the prin cip les o f literature study (link haeng w annakhadi), discussing the genres o f Thai classical poetry, and giving, .a general idea
o f how literature should be studied and analyzed. In the second part hevgave his account o f the history o f Thai literature. As he h ad done earlier in 'R eview o f Thai Literature', P lu'ang filled his later history w ith extracts from ancient texts. The rarer the text was, he said, the longer was the extract taken from it.35 As w elhas repeating the structure o f his earlier history in his 1952 one. he also w ith few exceptions, spoke about exactly the same works and writers.. A s before his history was an-inclusive one, covering all types o f writing. Eor instance in his chapter on the A uthaya period he included the w ork Kham lu'ang;-though w ritten in verse it was not p o etry but a sacred
tex t im portant for religious reasons.36 m
Plu'ang's 'History o f Thai L iterature for Students' talked exclusively about the royal court and writing in it. It show ed the im portant relationship that Thai kings had w ith literature. His history covered a period when kings w ere not only the m ain patrons o f writers but also authors them selves and key contributors to the 34 These lists w ere titled, Phra orot su'ng so n g m i khwam samkhan th a n g p ra w a tisa t lae wannkhadi and lamdap hetkan sam khan.
35 P lu ’ang, op.cit. Foreword.
36 Ibid p .57.
reign o f Ram a IV, in a period after thus, (n o t covered by Plu'ang in his history), w riting was no longer dom inated by the T h ai court and in particular the figure o f the king.
Though Plu'ang included a final chapter in his book on tw entieth
century Thai w riters and w orks, he d id not m ention either novelists, or novel w riting in it; By th e early 1950's, w hen Plu'ang's book w as first published, the T hai novel had, under the influence o f novelists like Siburapha, Prince A katdam koeng, D o ’km ai Sot IO S urangkhanang and Seni Saowapliong, progressed from being sim ply escapist fiction, adaptations and translations o f w estern works, to being an established form o f com m ent on Thai society and politics. N ovel w riting at this tim e had, how ever, yet to gain academ ic acceptance and becom e part o f literature curriculum in the .Thai
education system. Plu'ang, him self a guest lecturer at C hulalongkom U niversity, believ ed that contem porary w riting w as difficult to criticize and p ut a value on. For him , unlike Thai classical literature, its quality had y^et to be tested by the passage o f tim e.37
Paul Schweisguth.
To date the m ost im portant w estern book published on the history o f Thai literature is Etucle sur la Litterature Siam oise, 1951, w ritten by Paul
Schw eisguth. Though it is a standard reference for westerners studying T hai literary history, it is little know n in Thailand itself. This is perhaps due to, it being w ritten in
37 Ibid, Foreword.
French, its sm all print-run, and it never h av in g been republished either in France or in Thailand.38 In addition to this m uch o f the m aterial that it contains can be found in the history books o f Thai literature w ritten by P lu 'an g na Nakho'n.
Schw eisguth wrote his book b etw een 1941 and 194439 w hilst he was V ice-chancellor at the Legation o f France in B angkok.40 It was published seven years later in Paris, after he had spent tim e im proving an d re-editing it and after post-w ar shortages in printing materials had com e to a n end.41 M ore than fifty years after its publication it rem ains the only w estern w ork to cover such a long p erio d in Thai literature's history, from the thirteenth cen tu ry to the 1930's.
In the w ay o f structure and con tent, E tude sur la L itterature Siam oise is sim ilar to Plu'ang's anthology, ’Review o f T hai Literature' (1937-1942), w hich appears as a reference in its bibliography. Schw eisguth rather m odestly described his book as, a bibliography w ith com mentary. Like P lu'ang, Schw eisguth also adm ired Prince D atnrong and his w ork in the, field o f Thai literary history.-Plu'ang in his 'H istory o f Thai Literature for Students', 1952, advised students to treat the Prince's work as the
38 The book was published by Librairie d'A m erique et d'Orient A drien M aisonneuve, it h ad a print run o f betw een 800-1000 copies. (Personal correspondance dated
10.4.98).
39 Schweisguth, P. E tude sur la Litterature Siamoi.se, Paris: Librairie d'A m erique et d'O rient Adrien M aisonneuve 1951.
40 P.B. Lafont o f L'Ecole Frangaise d’Extrem e-O rient. (Personal correspondence dated 5.3.99).
41 Ibid.
42 Schweisguth, op. cit., Preface.
m odel to follow regardless o f the subject he w rote on.43 Schw eisguth on the other hand in his book w rote an entire chapter about his life and his w ork.44
N either an academ ic, nor a m em b er o f any French research organisation, Schw eisguth was a French governm ent official. He was an autodidact, an enlightened am ateur in the field o f Thai literature, w ho w rote his history in his free time. For him Thai literature was a hobby.45 Schw eisguth began his book w ith an introduction in w hich he talked about the history, o f the T hai nation, its religion, governm ent and w riting. H ere he also gave a rather sober view o f the literature w hose history he was about to discuss, he said:
"... in this literature no criticism , no dissertations on the subjects o f religion, politics or literature are to be found. Its dram a contains little tragedy, deaths are rarely eternal, the m ajority o f productions have a childish quality and a m oralistic goal. There are few shocking scenes to be found, on the contrary how ever, these productions are ful l o f gaiety and good hum our, descriptions are vivid and picturesque. It is these last traits w hich give this literature its charm ."46
Schw eisguth’s introduction to his study was, in the view o f the
respected Thai scholar, Prince Thani, im portant for the foreign language m aterial that
43 P lu ’ang, op. cit. p. 523.
44 Schweisguth, op. cit. p .343-57. The Prince appears to have been the inspiration for m ost o f Schweisguth's work. To write an article on kite flying, ('N ote sur les Jeux des C erf V olants’, Journal o f the Siam Society vol.34, 1934) he used as his m ain reference Tamnan Wao Phanan,(A Treatise on K ite Flying) by Phraphirom phakti for which Prince D amrong had w ritten the preface. In 1924 the Prince published a biography o f the poet Suntho'n Phu. Schw eisguth also took an interest in him , giving him m uch page space in his 1952 history, while in 1969 he wrote a French translation o f
Suntho'n Phu's poem , N ira tp h u khao tho'ng.
45 P.B. Lafont. op.cit.
46 Schweisguth, op. cit. p. 13.
it contained about Thai literature.47 In the v iew o f the famous French scholar G eorges Coedes, his introduction was im portant for the m aterial that he had translated on Thai prosody, w hich was for the first tim e m ade accessible to western readers.48
In Etude sur la L itterature S ia m o ise, Schw eisguth used Prince D am rong's approach to creating periods for literary history.49 For the Prince, a n ew period in Thai literature began with either th e succession o f a new king, the start o f a royal dynasty or the change in location o f th e Thai court. It was a little surprising for Schw eisguth to have accepted this approach, as it had been a long tim e since French historians had established the use o f p erio d s for French literary history, w hich
corresponded not with political events (changes in m onarchy, wars etc), but with dates o f the publication o f m ajor literary w orks and changes in literary trends w hich
follow ed.5# Perhaps in an effort to ju stify usin g Prince Damrong's non-literary periods for his history o f Thai literature, Schw eisguth w rote the following in his introduction to his book:
47 Prince Thani in his review o f S chw eisguth’s book in the Journal o f the Siam Society, vol. XLI, January 1954, p. 189. The Prince had also read and corrected the m anuscript o f the book prior to publication. (Schw eisguth, op.cit. P reface,)
48 The bulletin o f L'E.F.E.O., vol.46, no. 2 1954, review of Schw eisguth's book b y G eorges Coedes. Coedes wrote two review s o f the book: the first appeared in the revue, D iogene 1953, no. 2. He later extended and re-edited this review , republishing it in the aforem entioned bulletin o f L'E.F.E.O .
49 Schw eisguth’s periods were as follows: ‘Les prem iers textes’ (i.e. Suldhothai), ‘La Fondation d ’A y u t’hia (Schw eisguths’ transcriptions followed), Le regne die
Traylokanat, Le debut du XVII siecle, Le regne de P ’hra N aray (1632-1657-1688), La dynastie de Bangkok, Le regne de P ’huttaleutla, Le regne de N ang Klao, Le regne de Monglcut, Le regne de Chulalongkom , Le regne de Ram a VI.
50 J. R ohou notes that in nineteenth century France 'literary history' (histolre litteraire), w hich had been used for the history o f all m anner o f writing, began to be used
exclusively for the history o f literature, i.e. literary works. (J. Rohou op. cit. p .30.)
"The control o f literature by the co urt h as left a n im print on it so deep that it is indispensible to closely follow the h is to ry o f Siam in order to understand this.
It is for this reason that we have b een le d to divide this w ork into chapters corresponding to the principal episodes in the history o f the Thais o f Siam ..."51
After his introduction, Schw eisguth b eg an his history o f Thai literature in a rather predictable w ay w ith R am kham haeng's stone inscription.52 Though he began in the sam e way as Plu'ang had in his histories, S chw eisguth finished in a later period, covering w riting up to the reign o f Ram a V I (1910-1925), He began discussion o f each period w ith an outline description o f ev en ts w hich happened and conditions in the country at the tim e, he then went on to ta lk ab out w riters and w riting. As w as the case w ith Plu'ang's work, Schw eisguth's h isto ry included all types o f w riting and not ju s t literary works. His approach to w riting a b o u t the period o f Thai literature from
K ing R am kham haeng to Ram a IV was very sim ilar to Plu'ang's w ork in 'Review o f Thai Literature'. His periods o f literature w ere th e sam e, as were m ost o f the writers and works that he spoke about. The m ain d ifference betw een the w orks o f the two m en w as that Schw eisguth included chapters in his b o o k w hich dealt specifically w ith T hai theatre and also w hat he called 'secondary genres' (phleng, p h le n g yao, lullabies for elephants). T hough Schw eisguth's Etude s u r la L itterature Siam oise was very sim ilar to Plu'ang's 'Review o f Thai Literature', it was nevertheless a personal work from which an idea o f the man's personality c o u ld be formed. Schw eisguth's book included many o f his personal views o f the texts; he described. In som e cases these revealed a refreshing honesty, if not a certain naivety, about the literature that he was
51 Schweisguth, op. cit. p. 12.
52 The authenticity o f both the dating and authorship o f this inscription has been a source o f open debate in recent years. P lu ’a n g ’s w ork w as im portant in establishing if as the traditional starting point for histories o f Tliai literature and helping to establish it as a cornerstone o f Thai identity.
w riting about. For exam ple, he said that the ancient work called the C hindam ani, (the first w ork w ritten about Thai versification) w as:
"...w ithout doubt a m aster piece o f its kind, but a very boring read. It contains the rules o f tw enty-seven different types o f khlo'ng verse."53
He rather m issed the point about this w ork as it w as intended to be a guide for poets to w rite p oetry and not to be read from cover to cover for pleasure.
A nother com m on p o in t betw een S chw eisguth's book and Plu'ang's w ork w as that both used num erous extract exam ples from ancient texts. In his 1952 book 'Thai L iterature for Students', P lu'ang explained th a t he m ade use o f m any long extracts from texts because he w anted to give students access to ancient w orks, w hich were otherw ise difficult for them to find. He m oreover tried to encourage students to read the com plete text, by insisting how im portant reading was to studying literature.54 Schw eisguth on the other hand offered no explanation as to w hy he had given his history the form o f an anthology. ■.
W ithout any apparent aw areness o f the difficulties involved in translating ancient Thai poetry into French, Schw eisguth boldly translated extracts from several Thai m asterpieces, such as N ir a tp h u khao tho'ng by the poet- Suntho'n P hu.55 In the view o f the em inent French scholar, Georges Coedes, his translations left m uch to be desired. A w orld-renow ned South-East A sia specialist, Coedes wrote
53 Ibid p. 106.
54 P lu ’ang, op. cit. Foreword.
55 In 1969 Schweisguth published a French translation o f the w hole o f this poem , Sunt'hon P'hu N iratP 'hiTK 'hao Thong, E ssai de Traduction Litterale d'un Poem e T hai.
Schweisguth was particularly com plim entary about the novelist
‘D o ’km ai S o t’, identifying her as the first fe m a le Thai novelist and describing her w orks as ‘w ell-conceived’.61 O f Prince A k atdam ko en g, however, he was less than flattering. The Prince w as author o f ju s t tw o no vels before his m ysterious death, Lakho'n haeng chiwit ( ‘The Circus o f L ife’ 1929) and Phin lu'cing p h ia khao ( ‘Yellow
Skin, W hite S kin’, 1930). The former, in p articu lar, aroused considerable controversy, because o f w hat was regarded as the a u th o r’s thinly-veiled criticism s o f his ow n family. Schw eisguth echoed the view s o f m a n y conservative Thais w hen he com m ented,
"The case o f Prince A katdam koeng is quite sadly that o f a great num ber o f young people w hose m oral education is insufficient and health too w eak to resist the im pact o f white civilisation, w ith its selfishness, cruelty and inhum anity. His conclusion is that E ast an d W est can never m eet."62
Schw eisguth broadened his criticism o f th e Prince to em brace the young generation o f bourgeois Thais, who like him , w ere educated in the W est. In the opinion o f Schweisguth, who seem ed oddly resentful, these young Thais were trying to'dem olish and erase everything dhat they saw in their country, w hich they did not understand or no longer understood.63
Manich Chumsai and Klaus Wenk
The w ork o f two further authors, M anich Chum sai, and Klaus W enk, deserve some m ention, for as both works are w ritten in English, they are influential in shaping
61 Ibid p .365.
62 Schweisguth, op.cit. p. 364.
63 Ibid.
non-T hais’ im pressions o f and attitudes tow ards Thai literature in general and the novel in particular. M anich w as an influential figure in educational, literary, book- collecting and publishing circles from the 1950s until the 1980s. He w rote and published, am ong others, a num ber o f b iling ual dictionaries (Thai/English,
Thai/French and Thai/G erm an), phraseboolcs and English language histories o f Laos, Thailand and A nglo-Thai relations; his H isto ry o f Thai Literature appeared in 1973.64
M anich began 'H istory o f Thai L iterature' in an original w ay with a discussion o f Thai folk tales. This was not the start o f liis history however, it w as started a few pages later in a m uch m ore conventional w a y w ith Ram kham haeng's stone inscription.
M anich ended his book w ith a b rie f look at w riting in the m odem period, and a section on the m odem novel. W hen it cam e to the novel, M anich's w ork w as sketchy, lacking in any detail and in any originality, ft ow ed much to M .L. Bunlu'a-'s 1971 article Hua lieo kho'ng w annakhadi thai ( ‘T he Turning Point o f Thai L iterature’).65 The novel, he wrote, started in Thailand w ith translations o f w estern w orks filled with '.'crime, sex and delinquency, w hile later, novels started to be w ritten about society,
politics, com m on people and poverty. T hese novels, he added, w ere against social injustice and even the governm ent.66
M anich's discussion o f m ajor Thai novelists and their lives was b rie f and show ed his lack o f know ledge o f the subject. The first original novel w orthy o f any
64 M anich Chumsai, H istory o f Thai L itera tu re, Bangkok: Chalerm nit, 1973.
65 M .L B unlu’a Thepyasuw an, ‘Hua lieo kho'ng wannakhadi th a i’, in
W anwaitthayako ’n chabap w annakhadi, Bangkok: Khrongkan tam ra sangkhom sat lae m anutsaysat, 1 9 7 1 ,p . 55-157.
66 M anich op.cit. p .8.
note, he said, was M.C. A katdam koeng's 'Y ello w Skin, W hite Skin' 1930. M ost m ajor 1 historians o f contem porary Thai literature h o w ev er disagree w ith M anich on this.
They usually point to Prince A katdam koeng's 1929 novel Lakhon ’ haeng chiw it ( ‘The j Circus o f L ife’), as being the first im portant Thai novel, and m oreover his m ost
significant work. O f this novel, M anich sim p ly says that it was m ore p o pu lar with readers than 'Yellow Skin, W hite Skin'.67
In addition to M .C. A katdam koeng; M anich briefly talks about m ajor novelists, Dokmai Sot, Sot K huram arohit, Y akhop and Kukrit Pramot. H ow ever, h e leaves out others like, M alai C huphinit, Seni Saowaphong and K. Surangkhanang, w ho m ight be regarded as being equally im portant. Siburapha, m eanw hile, perhaps the m ost interesting o f the early Thai novelists, is not m entioned at all in this context and referred to only briefly in a section on Thai new spapers.68 In his discussion o f novel w riting in the 1960’s and 1970's, M anich predictably chooses the best-sellin g authors and'w inners o f literary awards-.69
: KlaUs W enk’s Thai Literature, an Introduction, was published in 1995.70 T he author, Professor o f Thai Literature at the U niversity o f Hamburg, follo w ed the approach to w riting Thai literary h isto ry established by Plu'ang N a N akh o'n some forty years earlier. Follow ing Plu'ang and Prince Damrong before him , W enk based
67 Ibid. p. 267.
68 Ibid. p.282.
69 Ibid. p.282.
70 W enk, Klaus, Thai Literature, an Introduction, Bangkok: W hite Lotus, 1995. F o r a perceptive review, see Rachel H arriso n’s review in South E ast A sia R esearch, voh 4, no. 1, M arch 1996, p. 95-100.
his literary periods on T hai history. He, b y h is ow n adm ission, used this approach out o f convenience, pointing out that a lot m ore research and study w as needed before the periods in Thai literature could be d eterm ined w ith validity.71 Like countless others before him , W enk took as the starting p o in t o f h is w ork King Ram kham haeng's stone inscription. He then continued w ith an accou nt o f literature in the A yutthaya,
Thonburi and Bangkok eras. The first and m a in part o f his history ended in 1932 w ith the fall o f the absolute m onarchy in T hailand, w hich according to W enk w as a turning point in the developm ent in Thai literature.72 He unfortunately did not go on to
explain w hat he m eant b y this, and it is certainly not easy to deduce, as at least from the reign o f Rama IV onw ards, if not earlier, the Thai m onarch no longer had a direct control over or significant influence on the d irection that Thai w riting took.
The publisher’s notes 011 the cover o f Wenlc's book state that it contains the integral part o f the Thai literary tradition, all th e essential titles. In W enk's opinion Thai prose fiction is no doubt an insignificant p art o f this tradition as he discusses it in ju s t five pages o f his book. In the rest o f the b o o k he writes exclusively about Thai
classical poetry, which he says, was a better w a y for Thais to express their w riting talent than was any genre o f prose.7 j On this last point W enk echoes the view s o f Schw eisguth.
At the very end o f his book W enk makes an attem pt to discuss the novel. He divides the novel into two categories: serious 'belles lettres' (w ritten in a
71 Ibid. p .1.
72 Ibid. p.78.
73 Ibid. p.83.
good linguistic form ) and popular fiction, m ost o f which he regards as literary trash.74 A nd rather than discuss novels in term s o f their themes, characterization, plots and structures, curiously, he discusses them , as he did Thai classical poetry, on the basis o f the language used in them. Thus, the novel, Phu chana sip th it by Y akhop, 1932, is w orth m entioning because o f its high quality o f its language.75 On the subject o f m ajor Thai novelists he writes ju s t two or so lines on each o f the following: Siburapha, Sot K uaram rohit, D o ’km ai Sot and M alai Chuphinit. Others w ell-know n writers, like Seni Saow aphong, are not m entioned at all.
Summary
This chapter has attem pted to show that the position o f the novel in traditional Thai literary historiography is at best marginal. It seem ed perfectly reasonable to Plu'ang na N akho'n, author o f the first Thai-language histories o f Thai literature, to exclude them from his work. Paul Schweisguth, w riting at the same tim e as P lu’ang, but for a W estern audience accustom ed to regarding the novel as a serious literary genre, pays lip service to the Thai novel with a b rief discussion o f some novelists, but his com m ents - and om issions - suggest that he had little first- or second-hand
f
fam iliarity w ith the state o f the novel in Thailand at tire time w hen he was writing. j M ore recent attempts to outline the history o f Thai literature to foreigners, by M anich /
i
Chumsai and W enk, also reflect the authors’ am biguous attitude to the Thai novel and w hether it really deserves to be treated as ‘literature’. /
I
74 Ibid. p .78 75 Ibid. p .78.
CHAPTER TWO
THE FIRST HISTORIES OF THE THAI NOVEL
The m ajor histories o f Thai literature published betw een 1937-1952, recorded only w riting from the classical literary period; there was little, if any, discussion o f contem porary Thai literature in general, and the novel in particular. 11 It was not until the 1970’s, and the appearance o f works by C h u ’a Satawethin, M .L. B u n lu ’a Thepayasuw an, Suphanni W aratho'n, W ibha Senanan and T risin B unkhaco’n, that academ ics began to take a serious interest in the history o f the novel and to research it in depth and w rite about in detail.2 The w ork o f these academ ics w ill form the basis o f the next chapter. But before the Thai novel becam e a sufficiently respectable subject for academ ics to research and postgraduate students to w rite theses about, chronicling the h isto ry o f the genre was left largely to a couple o f enthusiastic am ateurs, Y ot W atcharasathien and Prakat
W atcharapho’n.
1 See Chapter 1.
2 C hu’a Satawethin. Praw at nawaniyai thai. Bangkok: Sutthisan lean phim , 1974;
M.L. B unlu’a Thepayasuwan. ‘Hua lieo khong w annkhadi th;ai.’ In W anwaithhayakon chabap wannakhadi. Bangkok: Khrongkan tam ra sangkhom sat lae m anutsayasat, 1971, p.
55-157; W ibha Senanan, The Genesis o f the N ovel in Thailand, Bangkok: Thai W attana Panit, 1975; Supphani W arathon. Praw at kan praph an naw aniyai thai. Bangkok:
Khrongkan tamra sangkhom sat lae m anutsayasat, 1976.Trisiin B unkhachon. N aw aniyai kap sangkhom thai (2475-2500). Bangkok: Sangsan, 1980.
Y ot W atcharasathien was h im se lf a w riter, journalist and translator. H e first achieved success w ith a novel called C h a rtc h a i w hich was serialized in the d aily
new spaper, Sayam R a t Rai Wan in 1931 an d published in book form four years later.3 He w as a great adm irer o f ‘Siburapha’, o n e o f th e m ajor figures in the Thai literary w orld o f the 1930s and for a period, w orked w ith h im .4 Thus w hen he published K hw am p en ma kho ’ng kan praphan lae nakpra phan th a i ( ‘T h e Origins o f Thai W riting and W riters’) in
1963, he could draw on more than th ree decades o f personal experience o f th e Thai literary w o rld f Chapters 4-7 in Y o f s b o o k focus directly on the rise o f the novel, under the titles, Su y u k naw aniyai ( ‘T ow ards the A g e o f the N ovel’), N aw aniyai la e sam nuan roi keo fu 'a n g ( ‘The Popularity o f N ovel an d Prose W riting’), Thammai naw aniyai
c h u ’n g fu 'a n g ( ‘W hy is the N ovel P o p u la r? ’) and N aw aniyai ch a ksa m a i roem raek thu'ng p a tc h n b a n , ( ‘The N ovel, from its B eginnings to the Present’). Yot was breaking new
ground, in providing the Thai novel w ith a h isto ry and devoting considerable space in his book to discussing various aspects o f th e genre.
■' Y o t’s seventh chapter, N aw aniyai c h a k s a m a i roem raek th u 'n g p a tch u b a n , ( ‘The N ovel, from its Beginnings to the P re se n t’), broad ly outlines the history o f th e novel from the 1920s to the 1950s. It traces the origins o f the Thai novel back to the early attem pts by w estern-educated Thais to first translate wTestern novels, and then im itate w orks o f such writers as Charles Garvice and M arie C orelli, before finally producing ‘genuine
J ‘S idaoru’ang ’, Lakho ’n haeng lok, B ang ko k: W riter Magazine, 1994. p. 84-91. For further details o f Y o f s career, see P. W a tc h a ra p h o ’n, Chomrom n a kkh ia n , B angkok:D ok Ya, 2nd.ed. 1993,p 163-77.
4 Y ot W atcharasathien, K ulap S aipradit -S ib u ra p h a - thi Khaphachao ruchak, Bangkok:
A rts and Science, 1982.
5 Y ot W atcharasathian. Khwam pen m a kh o n g kan praphan lae nak praphan thai.
Bangkok: Phrae phitthaya, 1963.
Thai stories’. He describes the im portance o f jo u rn als, such as R oengrom , Suphcipburut, and Suan A ltsorn, in prom oting fiction and p ro v id in g an outlet for aspiring w riters, the role o f the ‘film book s’ that accom panied silen t m ovies, and were a pre-cursor to the novel, and the introduction o f literary prizes. He identifies different kinds o f novels, such as ru ’a n g p h a c h o n p h a i ( ‘adventure sto ries’) ru ’a n g lu 7c lap ( ‘m ystery sto ries’), ru ’ang talok (‘com edy stories’)'and, m ost popular o f all, ru ’ang r a k s o k ( ‘sad love stories’), and
gives exam ples o f w ell-know n w orks in each category. The nam es o f num erous well- know n writers are also sprinkled through the chapter, although Yot offers little in the way o f biographical details or com m ent on their w orks.6 Drawing upon his long involvem ent in the literary world, Yot could w rite from m em o ry , more in the style o f a diarist than a
historian. A lthough he was som etim es careless abo ut facts and details, he nevertheless ^ provided an invaluable fram ew ork for the m ore academ ically rigorous w orks o f Supphani, 7 W ibha and Trisin when they began research on the Thai novel in the follow ing d e c a d e / /
The second major figure in early w ritin g on the novel is Prakat W acharapho’n. H e was som ew hat younger than Y ot and does n o t ap pear to have been a fiction w riter at an y stage in his career. W here Yot aim ed to p rovide a broad panoram ic view o f the m odern literary world, Prakat was m ore interested in assem bling details o f the lives and works o f individual writers. W ithin the space o f five years, h e published three volum es consisting o f b rief biographies o f m ore than one hundred w riters. The first volum e, Prawat. n ak praphan ( ‘Biographies o f W riters’, 1962) p re-dated Y ot’s w ork by one year, and was
quickly followed by two further volumes, T ham niap nak praphan, ( ‘H andbook o f W riters’, 1963), and Chom rom n a k k h ia n , ( ‘W riters' Club’, 1966?). A glance through
6 Ibid. p. 153-213
1 For exam ple, when talking about literary p rizes, h e confesses that he has forgotten the title o f the w inning novel, ibid. p. 180.
