Knox, history and flights of fancy
An oil on canvas painting of Captain Robert Knox of the East India
Company, 1642-1720 drawn by P. Trampon in 1711.
Picture courtesy: National Maritime Museum, London
|
HISTORY ON RECORD: Writing history must indeed be a challenging task.
Attempting to reconstruct the scenes of days long past, historians
inevitably fall back on records supposedly maintained by sources whose
commitment to reporting the truth and nothing but the truth can only be
guessed at. Most times we have just the one witness who has put quill to
papyrus to record for prosperity the great doings of kings and armies of
yore.
When compared to the diverse and complex ways in which we record
present day happenings, historical records made by one individual scribe
seem singularly unsafe to be taken as totally accurate. Inevitably that
one recorder covered a complex historical event from his perspective. To
a historian this is as unsatisfactory as interpreting the Iraqi war
solely from the reports of the CNN.
Today a press statement made by President Bush will be recorded by an
incredible number of media representatives and what ever he says will be
subjected to a most gruelling analysis from which only a few words in
the statement will come unscathed. On the other hand, if a Roman
historian recorded that Emperor Augustus said a certain thing we have no
way of verifying its veracity and will have to accept it on trust.
As it happens oftentimes the ancient recorder himself was writing
about events, which preceded him by a few generations. He was invariably
in the employment of the monarch to boot; a condition, as experience
tells us, not overly conducive to truthfulness.
When reading history often we neglect unconsciously to separate the
dispassionate recording of events from the expression of personal
opinions of the historian. Particularly if the opinion expressed is
flattering, we as presumed heirs to that history like to think of the
source as credible.
On the other hand if history records gaping blunders or embarrassing
defeats of our forefathers we are inclined to overlook them or even
condemn the historical source as hostile.
It is stated at many parlour discussions that Robert Knox, a youthful
sailor who in 1660 at the age of 19 became a prisoner of the Kandy king
opined that a local ploughman when cleaned of the dirt from the paddy
field was fit to rule a kingdom. This observation, credited somewhat
inaccurately to the unfortunate prisoner, was in fact an interpretation
by him of a local saying.
It is not an original observation of the regal attributes of his
captors by Knox but only an approximation by him of a then popular
proverb. This complimentary assessment of the men of the soil is not
therefore a fact of history but only an indication of what some Kandyan
folk thought of themselves.
It is evident that the Englishmen who a few years later conquered the
hilly kingdom did not act on Knox’s translation and offer the ploughmen
of Kandy high posts in their colonial administration. Our subsequent
efforts at Statecraft sadly belie the optimistic assessment of the
skills at governing attributed to the locals by this proverb.
Knox was perhaps not aware of the horrifying report the then King
received of the first Portuguese ship to arrive on our shores. This was
in November 1505.
Apparently King Parakramabahu VIII who was ruling from Kotte was told
by his spies “there is in our harbour of Colombo a race of people fair
of skin and comely withal.
They don jackets of iron and hats of iron; they rest not a minute in
one place; they walk here and there; they eat hunks of stone and drink
blood; they give two or three pieces of gold and silver for one fish or
one lime; the report of their canon is louder than thunder when it
bursts on the rock of Yugandhara. Their cannon balls fly many a gavva
and shatter fortresses of granite.”
This simplistic report of an unexpected development occurring only a
few miles away from the palace by couriers who were obviously dumb
founded by their first encounter with Europeans does not speak well of
the awareness of the King’s men of the world outside. The newcomers and
their technology seem to have been a completely new phenomenon to them.
Then again other sources claim that before all this our Kings sent
emissaries to the far away Roman court. The record keepers of the era do
not enlighten us on the purpose of our ambassador’s long and arduous
journey to Rome.
There are chronicles, which talk of thriving trade with countries far
and wide. But these chroniclers, unfamiliar with matters of trade and
exchange, are silent on the details of international business of the
era.
If a barter system was used, how much salt did we receive for one
elephant? If we possessed the skills to build ships, especially those
that could sail against the wind, why are our maritime records so bare?
These wide gaps in the recording of history naturally lead to
discrepancies and inconsistencies, which leave us with many unanswered
questions.
What really was the life of an average person like in ancient Sri
Lanka? Can we impute the knowledge and capabilities we now possess to
those who lived in very different times and circumstances? It has been
pointed out by researchers that some history writers have assumed
certain capabilities on the part of their subjects, which were not in
fact available in the times they were writing about.
There have been instances where later day historians have put armies
on saddle even before horses were introduced to the country. It is no
wonder that history, so open to flights of fancy, continues to excite
and also exasperate us.
Ravi Perera |