about. This is not the place to critique the orientalist assumptions, sociological
ramifications, and elitist consequences of such a bibliocentric view;
suffice it to point out that it is operative in this work. Bibliographically,
however, this limitation is also a strength, for it enables Professor de Jong
to limit the scope of his work and focus on the material he knows best,
better perhaps than anyone else in the field: the books of Buddhism. Occasionally,
of course, it is possible to wonder about some seemingly overlooked
textual study (for instance, how — or rather why — did Léon FeerÕs
works on the Avadàna'sataka and the Karma'sataka slip by unmentioned?),
but these are more than compensated for by the plethora of references to
works and scholars who are often ignored (for example, Poul Tuxen, of
whom I, at least, was unaware). Granted, one person cannot Òread
everything,Ó but Professor de Jong comes closer than most. In other words,
whatever criticism one may have of this volume, there is much — very
much — to be learned from it. Within the confines of his undertaking, de
JongÕs coverage of textual studies is truly impressive.
(2) Secondly, it should perhaps have been made more clear in the title
of this book that its focus is not just on Buddhist texts, but more particularly
on Indian Buddhist texts — primarily in Sanskrit and Pali — although
some attention is paid to Tibetan and Chinese materials as well. This,
again, is a focus that Professor de Jong readily acknowledges at a number
of points, indicating that he prefers to leave to others the task of greater
non-Indian coverage. This makes it possible for him to concentrate on his
forte, but it does means that little attention is paid to the works of founders
and masters of the various Chinese and Tibetan schools (and virtually no
mention is made at all of Japanese Buddhist developments). Thus, forexample, a scholar like Jeffrey Hopkins, who has been prolifically involved
in the translation of Tibetan sectarian texts, gets no notice at all. Similarly,
the study of vernacular works — in Sinhalese, Thai, Burmese, and so on —
is only peripherally touched upon. Professor de Jong, of course, is well
aware of all of this, and in his last chapter proposes a possible scheme by
which a truly comprehensive international bibliography of Buddhist studies
could be compiled.
(3) Thirdly, and not unrelated to this, is the suggested placing, in my
proposed revamping of the title, of the words Òand AmericaÓ in parentheses.
In fact, comparatively little attention is given to the works of American
scholars in this book. Only about fifteen or twenty of the over 500
scholars mentioned by Professor de Jong are Americans, and some of them,
such as Richard Robinson, figure only for their book reviews or obituaries.
But perhaps even better than putting Òand AmericaÓ in parentheses would
be to re-subtitle the book ÒA bibliographic history for Americans,Ó for one
of the strengths of Professor de JongÕs survey lies in his coverage of German
and French works which, sadly, American students and scholars often
ignore or neglect. In this context, this book serves an important function as
an eye-opener and a reminder of what has gone on internationally in the
study of Indian Buddhist texts. As such, it (and the materials it describes)
should be required reading for every graduate student — but especially for
every American graduate student — in the field.
(4) Finally, I think the title of this work should make it clear that it is
not so much a history as a Òbibliographic history.Ó Simply put, much attention
is paid to ÒwhoÓ wrote Òwhat,Ó but there is little discussion of Òwhy.Ó
The cultural context of this history is somehow missing. This is especially
true in the last two chapters (written in 1984 and 1990) which are quite
different in tone and structure from the first four (written in 1974). In the
latter, which cover the period from 1973 to 1990, little attempt is made to
interpret the ÒflowÓ of Buddhist textual scholarship; de Jong simply describes
it, often with footnotes to book reviews in lieu of a critical assessment
of the work. This is bibliographically useful, perhaps, but fails to
give the reader — especially the non-specialist student — a sense of the
field. Much more helpful and interesting are the first four chapters, which
deal with the period from antiquity to 1973, and are often structured around
themes debated and scholarly stances taken. Thus, for example, Professor
de JongÕs presentation in chapter two of the Emile Senart-Hermann
Oldenberg spectrum on the life of the Buddha is both informative and enlightening.
So too is his focus, in chapter three, on the philological debates