surrounding Franklin EdgertonÕs ÒBuddhist Hybrid Sanskrit.Ó Moreover,
in these chapters de Jong allows his own enthusiasms for the work of parexample, 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
surrounding Franklin EdgertonÕs ÒBuddhist Hybrid Sanskrit.Ó Moreover,
in these chapters de Jong allows his own enthusiasms for the work of particular scholars — Eugène Burnouf, Sylvain Lévi, John Brough, to cite but
a few — to come through. The result is a lively and focussed bibliographic
history of this period. In conclusion, then, we should welcome the reissuing
of these essays of Professor de Jong in book form. They are not quite
what their title says they are, but they remain an important and helpful
presentation of the study of Indian Buddhist texts in the West by a scholar
whose knowledge of that field is superlative and authoritative.