Buddhist Translation Practices in Medieval China: The Case of the Buddhacarita by Laura Lettere (review)

Reviewed by: Buddhist Translation Practices in Medieval China: The Case of the Buddhacarita by Laura Lettere Anna Sokolova Laura Lettere, Buddhist Translation Practices in Medieval China: The Case of the Buddhacarita. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider, 2023. 250 pp. €110 (pb). ISBN 978–8–891–32263–0 To the best of our knowledge, the Buddhacarita (Acts of the Buddha)—an epic Sanskrit poem composed by Aśvaghoṣa in the early second century CE—is the earliest complete account of the Buddha's life from birth to the distribution of his relics. The book under review (hereafter Buddhist Translation Practices) presents a comprehensive historical and philological analysis of the Fo suoxing zan 佛所行讚 (T.4.192)—the Chinese translation of the Buddhacarita, which Lettere attributes to the Chinese monk Baoyun 寶雲 (376?–449). Since Samuel Beal published the first English translation of the Buddhacarita from Chinese in 1883, generations of scholars have strived to produce improved edited translations of the text as well as historical and philological analyses of both the original Sanskrit poem and the Chinese translation.1 Lettere's monograph is a meticulous attempt to reconstruct the historical and social landscape in which the Chinese translation was undertaken in the early fifth century. The author not only highlights the network of monks who were engaged in the production of the Fo suoxing zan, but also links the poem to a number of other texts in the Taishō Buddhist Canon on the basis of their shared stylistic features and the translators' social connections. The first chapter of Buddhist Translation Practices provides a detailed overview of every surviving manuscript of the Buddhacarita (including a copy of the poem's fifteenth sarga (chapter), discovered in a Tibetan monastery in 2021), their translation and dissemination in the West, and historical and philological studies of the poem in multiple languages. Lettere devotes particular attention to studies that trace correlations between the textual tradition and artistic representations of the Buddha's life in various regions, especially in Gandhāran and Mathurā art. The chapter also contextualizes the Buddhacarita within the Brahmanic literary tradition represented by the poems of Kālidāsa (fl. fourth–fifth century CE) and the Rāmāyaṇa. Furthermore, Lettere underscores the importance of the dialogue between Brahmanism and Buddhism by comparing the Buddhacarita with the Mahābhārata, and by tracing the evolution of the concept of dharma in the two traditions. The second chapter presents comparative analyses of textual sources that attribute authorship of the Buddhacarita's Chinese translation to particular individuals. Through a careful study of several Chinese catalogues of Buddhist translations in the Taishō Canon—including the generally reliable Chu sanzang jiji 出三藏記集 (T.55.2145), compiled by Sengyou 僧祐 (445–518)—the author demonstrates that the earliest catalogues routinely identified Baoyun as the translator of the Buddhacarita. However, according to Lettere, a shift then occurred, with later catalogues attributing the translated poem's authorship to Dharmakṣema 曇無讖 (385–433). Chapter 3 presents an abundance of data regarding Baoyun, including fragments relating to his biography, collaborations, and engagement in translation projects. On End Page 156 the basis of this evidence, Lettere concludes that Baoyun must have played a key role in the translation of a number of important doctrinal texts. However, his contributions were overshadowed by those of his famous foreign collaborators, such as Buddhabhadra佛陀跋陀羅 (359–429) and Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 (394–468), with the result that Baoyun's name fell into oblivion. The author suggests that this was typical of many medieval translation projects, during which native Chinese monks would do the majority of the work only for their more renowned foreign contemporaries to garner most of the acclaim, as the latter's association with a particular project often substantiated the text's authenticity.2 The chapter also presents a detailed statistical analysis of grammatical and lexical features that are shared by the Buddhacarita, the Fo suoxing zan, and a corpus of related scriptures. Lettere suggests that Baoyun's distinctive style is evident in several texts in the Taishō Canon, most notably the Chinese translation of the meditation manual Damoduoluo chan jing 達摩多羅禪經 (T.15.618), which is invariably attributed to his master, Buddhabhadra. Chapter 4 explores the historical...