Historiography is one of the fields traditional Chinese culture excelled in. Both the secular historiography and the Buddhist historiography of premodern China are historiographic traditions of abundant wealth. However, while scholars did make substantial efforts investigating and translating major works of Chinese secular historiography, Chinese Buddhist historiography received comparatively little scholarly attention so far. This is unfortunate since a closer investigation of Chinese Buddhist historiography would significantly enhance our general understanding of the development of Buddhism in China. A serious beginning has however been made. A pioneering introductory work on Buddhist historiography of the Song period was presented by Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer. It is entitled Die Identität der buddhistischen Schulen und die Kompilation buddhistischer Universalgeschichten in China: Ein Beitrag zur Geistesgeschichte der Sung-Zeit (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1982). More explicitly focusing on the Buddhist Tiantai school, I myself have presented a study entitled Making and Remaking of History: A Study of Tiantai Sectarian Historiography (Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1999). However, in order to gain secure footage in the study of the Buddhist historiographic tradition, translations of the major works will be necessary. Here, too, the achievements regarding Buddhist historiography fall short of those regarding secular historiography.

Against this background, the translation from the Fozu tongji which Thomas Jülch is offering here constitutes an important contribution to the research process. The Fozu tongji by the Southern Song monk Zhipan (1220–1275) is by far the most complex work of premodern Chinese Buddhist historiography. Written within the context of the rivalry between Chan and Tiantai Buddhism, the Fozu tongji represents the Tiantai school and concludes the sequence of Tiantai Buddhist historiographic works that were written in the Song dynasty. The Fozu tongji is divided into a variety of sections each of which has its own theme. The most complex of these sections is the “Fayun tongsai zhi” (Monograph on Success and Obstructions in the Spread of the Dharma), an elaborate annalistic history of Buddhism in China, which alone comprises fifteen juan. As the title announces, the section goes through the history of Buddhism in China by referring to both accomplishments and setbacks. The accomplishments are usually miraculous events that occurred in connection with the practice of the dharma. The setbacks are impairments of Buddhism especially through disparagements and persecutions. Most of the historiographic content assembled in the “Fayun tongsai zhi” is adopted from earlier works and presented in abridged and modified form. On the one hand Zhipan impresses the readers by demonstrating a remarkable mastery of a wide variety of sources. On the other hand it also needs to be said that in certain cases Zhipan’s reading and reception of the sources is faulty and includes imprecisions.

Jülch’s work, which will comprise three volumes in total, is designed to present a complete translation of the “Fayun tongsai zhi.” The present first volume translates the materials referring to the period from the times of the birth of the Buddha to the end of the Nanbeichao era. Translating from the “Fayun tongsai zhi” is truly arduous work, since all the sources the text relies on need to be identified. Taking into account that the content of the “Fayun tongsai zhi” almost exclusively constitutes itself out of such receptions, identifying all of the sources poses an enormous challenge. And it is a challenge which Jülch convincingly addresses in his translation. In his annotations he guides the reader to the relevant sources, and reveals the imprecisions in Zhipan’s reception of those sources wherever necessary. Beyond the source references the apparatus of annotations which accompanies Jülch’s translation includes rich funds of explanations further elucidating particular passages by providing backgrounds and contextualizations as well as references to relevant research. Through the clarity of the translations and the generosity of the annotations Jülch’s work sets a new standard for future translation projects in the realm of Chinese Buddhist historiography.

The materials Jülch plans to translate in the second volume of his translation project have already been subject to translation work by Jan Yün-hua in a publication entitled A Chronicle of Buddhism in China, 581–960 A.D.: Translations from Monk Chih-p’an’s Fo-tsu T’ung-chi (Santiniketan: Visva-Bharati, 1966). Jan’s translation is however cursory rather than complete. Still Jan does not insert omission marks, and he does not explain by which criteria he selects the passages he includes in his translation. Also Jan’s translation style is not unproblematic. Frequently his translation is overly free to the point of summarizing the text rather than translating it. Given that in Jan’s times the conditions for research in Chinese studies were different from today, Jan’s translation is still a remarkable achievement. But it is good to see that beginning with the present volume Jülch now offers a new approach to the “Fayun tongsai zhi.”

Chen Jinhua

Professor of East Asian Buddhism, University of British Columbia