Who needs translations? The question seems ludicrous in an age of globalisation, but also justified if the target language is not English. Thomas Jülch shows that the art of philological translation into languages other than English is far from dead. Calling this book ambitious would be an understatement. It is a revised and hugely enlarged edition of the author's doctoral dissertation, submitted to the University of Munich in 2011 under the title Die apologetischen Schriften des buddhistischen Tang-Mönchs Falin. While the first edition only comprised one volume (albeit 700 pages long), this one consists of three volumes, more than 5/6 of which is composed of translations.

For the most part, the work is a translation of two apologetic treatises written by the Buddhist monk Falin 法琳 (572–640) under the early Tang 唐 Dynasty (618–907) and other apologetic and hagiographic sources that pertain to Falin's life. The two treatises in question are Treatise on Destroying Evils (Poxie lun 破邪論) and Treatise on Explaining Correctness (Bianzheng lun 辯正論); the sources on Falin's life are Alternative Tradition of Falin (Falin biezhuan 法琳別傳), his biography in Continued Traditions of Eminent Monks (Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳), and a selection from Collection of Debates between Buddhist and Daoists (Fodao lunheng 佛道論衡) involving Falin. The work consists of an ‘Analytical Part’ (vol. 1, pp. 1–188) and a ‘Translation Part’ (the rest of vol. 1 and the whole of vols. 2 to 3). They are preceded by an English ‘Foreword’ (pp. xvi–xxii) by Bart Dessein and ‘Acknowledgments’ (pp. xxiii–xxiv), which list no fewer than 59 people in alphabetic order, without specifying the exact nature of their ‘hands-on support’.

Falin was a student of the two founders of the Tiantai 天台 and Sanlun 三論 schools of Buddhism, Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597) and Jizang 吉藏 (549–623). After an itinerant early life, during which he also donned the robe of a Daoist monk, he returned to the Buddhist fold in 618, when he moved to Chang'an 長安 (near modern Xi'an 西安), the capital of the then newly-founded Tang Dynasty (pp. 45–49). There, he became enmeshed in debates about which of the two dominant religions – Daoism or Buddhism – should enjoy preference at court. The Tang founder Li Yuan 李淵 (566–635, posthumously Gaozu 高祖, r. 618–26) favoured Daoism, because prophecies about the arrival of a saviour with the surname Li had accompanied his ascendancy. Coincidentally, the mythical founder of Daoism, Lao Zi 老子 (the Old Master) was also surnamed Li (pp. 5–6). In a series of anti-Buddhist memorials, the official and Daoist priest Fu Yi 傅奕 (555–639) argued that Buddhism was a foreign religion and should be expelled from Chinese soil (a translation of one of the memorials can be found in the ‘Foreword’, pp. xiv–xvii). Fu Yi's memorials are a classical expression of the standardized anti-Buddhist rhetoric under the Tang, which was emulated by countless others, including Han Yu's 韓愈 (768–824) ‘Memorial Discussing the Buddha Bone’ (‘Lun Fogu biao’ 論佛骨表 – erroneously called ‘Pai Fogu biao’ 排佛骨表 on p. xxi) of 819 and Li Deyu's 李德裕 (787–850) ‘Felicitations on the Imperial Virtue for Destroying the Buddhist Monasteries’ (‘He feihui Fosi deyin biao’ 賀廢毀佛寺德音表) of 846. In Poxie lun, Falin targeted the ‘eleven theses’ (shiyi tiao 十一條) with which Fu Yi proposed to reduce the Buddhist order, in Bianzheng lun the anti-Buddhist arguments brought forth by the Daoists Li Zhongqing 李仲卿 and Liu Jinxi 劉進喜 (pp. 6–7).

The ‘Analytical Part’ has the length of a short monograph. By way of contrast, the ‘Introduction’ is only three pages long, juxtaposing Chinese with late antique Christian apologetics, with which the author does not deal in any more detail, followed by an ‘Outline of the Present Work’ (p. 4). ‘Preliminary Remarks on Terminology’ (pp. xxv–xxvi) precede the ‘Introduction’. Here, Jülch justifies why he retains the word ‘Hīnayāna’ (‘Lesser Vehicle’ – a polemical term coined by schools of Mahāyāna- or ‘Greater Vehicle’-Buddhism) and the controversial dichotomy Daojia 道家 (‘philosophical Daoism’) vs. Daojiao 道教 (‘religious Daoism’). Chapter 3 (pp. 5–14) situates Falin's works in the context of deliberations at court about the relative status of Buddhism, Daoism, and – to a lesser extent – Confucianism. Like many others, Jülch believes that the weal and woe of Buddhism and Daoism under the Tang changed according to the religious preferences of each emperor. That may be partly true, but at the same time the bureaucracy was anxious to maintain a balance so as to avert a dominance of one religion over the emperor.

Chapters 4 and 5 (pp. 14–31) introduce the structure, content, and history of the transmission of Poxie lun, Bianzheng lun, Fodao lunheng and Xu Fodao lunheng 續佛道論衡 (Continued Collection of Debates between Buddhist and Daoists). Chapters 6 and 7 (pp. 32–59) deal with sources regarding Falin's life, most importantly the Falin biezhuan, which is a protocol of his interrogation by an imperial commission after he had fallen out with Emperor Taizong 太宗 (Li Shimin 李世民, 599–649, r. 626–49) and which resulted in his banishment. The reason for his indictment was that an official, Qin Shiying 秦世英, accused Falin of having slandered Lao Zi with his Bianzheng lun (p. 38). Chapter 8 (pp. 59–63) gives an account of Falin's main opponents, Fu Yi, Liu Jinxi, and Li Zhongqing. Chapters 9 and 10 may be the most useful of the analytical part: chapter 9 (pp. 63–76) describes the tradition of Chinese Buddhist apologetics up to the Tang, while Chapter 10 (pp. 77–134) dissects Falin's line of reasoning into core arguments and contrasts his use of them with that before the Tang. Chapters 11 and 12 (pp. 135–153) deal with Falin's reliance on non-Buddhist sources such as the Confucian classics, Zhuangzi 莊子, and historical as well as ‘apocryphal’ (chenwei 讖緯) texts. Chapter 13 (pp. 154–176) tabulates intertextualities of the translated and other sources, chapter 14 deals with Falin's influence and later biographical accounts, pp. 186–187 shows a map of Chang'an during the Tang.

The many subdivisions of the ‘Analytical Part’ – two subheadings appear on a single page in a number of cases (e.g., pp. 7, 8, and 14) – are sometimes confusing and give cause to more than one repetition. This part of the work cannot hide its origin in a German dissertation, which are often published the way they are submitted. The translation attempts to be literal, which is of advantage for readers who can compare the Chinese text with the translation, but will be difficult to comprehend for someone whose native tongue is not German. The biggest asset of the translation is the format of presentation: throughout, Chinese and German texts are placed side by side in tabular form. The necessities of grammar sometimes caused the author to move a word in the translation up or down a few lines. Some oddities seem to be the result of typesetting, for instance, a black line that is running along the right margin of the main text from p. 272 to p. 346. Translations are of course the result of subjective choices and personal taste, and criticising them can seem petty and tedious. To point out just one thing: throughout, Juelch translates shengren 聖人, commonly rendered ‘sage,’ as ‘der Berufene’ (‘appointee,’ ‘the chosen one’). That may provoke the question: appointed or chosen by whom?

One error that many authors commit is to take the posthumous titles of emperors as if they were actual names used during their lifetimes. Often this can be excused as an ambiguity in language, but when Jülch writes (p. 10), ‘he [Li Shimin] himself became emperor as Tang Taizong 唐太宗,’ he clearly uses ‘Taizong’ as the name Li Shimin assumed when ascending the throne, while in fact it was the temple name that was only bestowed upon him after his death.

One line of enquiry arising from Jülch's work is what bearing the apologetic tradition had on the evolution of a ‘secular’ genre of ‘treatise’ or ‘discourse’ (lun 論). Sure enough, he briefly discusses such texts on pp. 66–68 and mentions a few others in passing, for example, Cao Zhi's 曹植 (192–232) Treatise on Explaining the Way (Bian Dao lun 辯道論, p. 120 and 142). However, this author has often wondered what influence, if any, the Buddhist śāstra (translated as lun in China) and the treatise in literature, such as Jia Yi's 賈誼 (200–168 BC) Treatise on Faulting Qin (Guo Qin lun 過秦論) and Li Kang's 李康 (196?–265?) Treatise on Fate (Yunming lun 運命論), had on the lasting popularity of the genre in religious circles and vice versa.

Overall, the author deserves much credit for embarking on such an ambitious project and for producing such a finely annotated translation.