ISSN 1076-9005
Volume 5 1998:471–475
Publication date: 6 December 1998
A Brief History of Buddhist Studies in Europe and America. By J. W. de
Jong. Tokyo: K‘sei Publishing Company, 1997, 184 pages, ISBN:
4333017629, US $19.95.
Reviewed by
John S. Strong
Department of Religion
Bates College, Lewiston, Maine
jstrong@bates.edu

Copyright Notice
Digital copies of this work may be made and distributed provided no charge is made and
no alteration is made to the content. Reproduction in any other format with the exception
of a single copy for private study requires the written permission of the author. All
enquiries to jbe-general@jbe.la.psu.edu

This book consists of six chapters which span the chronology of Buddhist
studies in the West from antiquity to 1990. Chapter one deals
with ÒThe Early Period (300 B.C.-1877),Ó chapter two with ÒThe
Middle Period (1877-1942),Ó and chapter three with ÒRecent Decades: A
(1943-1973).Ó These three chapters, along with chapter four, ÒFuture
Perspectives,Ó were originally published in the May and October 1974 issues
of The Eastern Buddhist, and are reprinted here with minor alterations.
Many Buddhist scholars interested in the history of their discipline
will already be familiar with them, for they have achieved a certain status
and renown in the field. Chapter five, ÒRecent Decades: B (1973-83),Ó
first appeared in The Eastern Buddhist ten years later, in 1984, and chapter
six, covering the period from 1984 to 1990, was originally published in
Chå‘ gakujutsu kenkyåjo kiy‘ in 1990. It is very useful to have them added
to the original essays and all reprinted here in book form.
Taken together, these chapters cover a vast number of works — primarily
studies, editions, and translations of Buddhist texts — by over 500
scholars writing principally in English, French and German, although there
are some references to publications in Dutch, Italian, Japanese, Russian,
Spanish, and others. The task of reviewing such a volume, given the scope
of its coverage, presents certain logistical problems. In an attempt to solve
them, I will try to keep my remarks at a fairly general level and construct
this review around a critique of the bookÕs title which, I hope, will serve to
highlight some of the workÕs riches, as well as clarify some of its limitations.
For, as a title, ÒA Brief History of Buddhist Studies in Europe and
America,Ó is somewhat misleading. More accurate would be something
like: ÒThe Study of Indian Buddhist Texts in Europe (and America): a
Bibliographic History.Ó In what follows, I would like to explain the reasons
for this opinion, point by point.
(1) First, as Professor de Jong readily admits (indeed, he emphasizes
this on several occasions), this book is not really about the study of Buddhism
as a whole, in all its aspects, but about the study of Buddhist texts.
The focus is primarily on philological studies. As a consequence, certain
scholars whose works one might expect to find discussed in any overall
consideration of the field of Buddhist studies escape any mention whatsoever.
Paul MusÕs Barabud.ur, for instance, is not touched upon at all; nor
is there any mention of any of MusÕs other works, or of a classic such as
FoucherÕs Art gréco-bouddhique du Gandhàra, which so influenced Mus.
Even more neglected are the studies of anthropologists; thus the trio of
books (whatever one thinks of them) that helped transform the study of
Theravàda Buddhism in the early 1970s — Richard GombrichÕs Precept
and Practice, Stanley TambiahÕs Buddhism and the Spirit Cults, and MelfordSpiroÕs Buddhism and Society, — are passed over in silence. And properly
so, one might say, in a study that focuses on philology, but improperly so
in a Òhistory of Buddhist studies,Ó even a brief one.
There is, of course, more involved here than simply a misnomer. Disclaimers
aside, it seems to me that there lies behind the title of this book an
unshakable confidence in the final and fundamental importance of philology
to an understanding of Buddhism. ÒA religion like Buddhism,Ó Professor
de Jong asserts, Òcannot be understood without a thorough study of
its scriptures,Ó and he points out that missionaries (and presumably others)
Òwhose knowledge was based upon what they observed, and on discussions
with Buddhist priests,Ó rather on the study of Buddhist texts, must
have found it Òvery difficult to gain a clear notion of the main Buddhist
teachingsÓ (p. 18). Moreover, it is assumed here that Buddhist texts are
meant primarily to be read, studied, and interpreted (rather than to be worshipped
or used ritually), and that what they tell us is what Buddhism is all