Terjék József: Kőrösi Csoma-dokumentumok az Akadémiai Könyvtár gyűjteményeiben. Budapest, 1976.

Preface

10 to have this forgotten by the Tibetists. When some fifty years ago the writer of this preface first attended Professor Bacot's Tibetan class in Paris and was asked to tell not only his name but also his nationality, the Professor, approved by the small audience from all the world over, remarked with a brightened face that then he must be familiar with the Tibetan language . . . And the late compatriot of Csoma looked startled at his day-old fellow-Tibetists: do they really imagine the newsboys keep yelling out headlines in Tibetan along the Boulevard in Budapest! But let's stop joking. The average Hungarian reader is indeed extremely unaware of Csoma the Tibetist. Being an expert, József Terjék's aim in this work was to present the achievements of Alexander Kó'rosi Csoma in that field of scholarship where he did produce of lasting value: how he, after previous abortive attempts, discovered the Tibetan language and literature for scholarship. Literature here means Buddhist literature, or rather the Tibetan clue for the literature of northern Buddhism. To demonstrate Csoma's scientific greatness, one would refer to his Tibetan dictionary and grammar. It is quite proper, but besides these two one ought not to forget a third one: namely, the review of the two great Buddhist Canon Books, the Kanjur and the Tanjur. It was actually the very first review starting the independent study of the Buddhist literature of Tibetan langucge growing enourmous afterwards. This keen one-sidedness of Térjék is a novelty in his book, even though Duka has the merit of initiation in this regard too. Térjék the Tibetist can see the problems and merits of Csoma the Tibetist from within, so he guides the reader around with first-hand information while others, like Duka, were obliged to inform indirectly. Térjék is trying to establish here a particular new genre. He does not content himself with the simple publication of the material as practically everyone would have done in his place. He summarizes, evaluates, gives his opinion of things and men, not forgetting meanwhile about his material and the diverging branches of the data: he follows them and makes them speak. Auad the data do speak, often more clearly and distinctly than the stereotype wording they stand for. The author does not