Almond《The British Discovery of Buddhism》（[0517]，Cambridge 1988，）担得起本段所述之大半：①巴利文学会：書 26「especially after the creation of the Pali Text Society by T.W. Rhys Davids in 1881」，创办人与年代皆合；同处并谓自 1877 年起巴利典籍的校刊出版显著增多，PTS 成立后尤甚，即正文「出版了大量巴利文原典和英译」。②布尔努夫的奠基地位：書 24 称其 1844 年《Introduction》为「The definitive word」，書
核查全文
25 更谓「This work was recognized from the time of its publication as the single most important work in the field up to that time」，与正文「奠定了欧洲佛教学的语文学基础」相当。此系通行年份，不在争议之列，惟记明未经坐实。判确，处置无需更新（正文此行本无脚注）。
Salomon《Ancient Buddhist Scrolls from Gandhara》(1999) 今日。三项俱确：1990年代出土——发现于1996年6月见诸媒体（书内自陈）；断代——书内多处作 first century C.E./first half of the first century A.D.，与正文「大英图书馆所藏……约当公元一世纪前半」逐字相合（正文另给的「约公元前一世纪至公元三世纪」是全体犍陀罗写本后续扩大发现的范围，与此不矛盾）；现存最古——「these fragments are likely to be the oldest Buddhist manuscripts...known to date」。
核查全文
编者自述考古脉络缺失一句亦逐字坐实：「No reliable information is available as to the circumstances, location, and date of the discovery...This is highly regrettable, as the loss of a proper archeological context seriously diminishes their scholarly value」，与正文「发现的时间、地点与情形都没有记录，考古脉络的缺失使其学术价值受到相当折损」几乎逐字对应。判确。
[0593] The Legality of Bhikkhunī Ordination - Bhikkhu Anālayo - 2013
书页
期刊第 325 页
核查结论
正文第 63 行末二句由 JBE 一篇坐实。该篇目次即列 Theravāda legal principles、The sixth garudhamma、The Chinese preceptors、Single ordination by bhikkhus 诸目；其述源流曰：斯里兰卡比丘尼传承中绝之前，五世纪初尝以其传承付于中国，而八世纪初「the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya appears to have been imposed by imperial order on all monastics in China」，故一九九八年菩提伽耶之受戒须假华人比丘尼之力。*
核查全文
*其法律难处正是「不同律典之异」而非释义之异：「the Vinaya precedent regarding how to become samānasaṃvāsa concerns only differences in the interpretation of the rules. Here, however, the difference is in the rules themselves.」又论单众受戒曰第六敬法「are only recommendations, they are not rules whose violation carries explicitly formulated consequence」，且敬法本为比丘尼所守而非授比丘者。是正文「不同律典对受戒程序的规定有差异，而这些差异在现代受戒争论里被各方分别援引」，逐字有据。已改**：脚注（第 179 行）补两卷之残全、JBE 一篇之目次与三处原文、及专书二版，使受戒一句有其所系；该脚注前此只列《中部比较研究》一书，于受戒一事实无着落。
Theravada Buddhism A social history from ancient Benares to modern Colombo - Richard F. Gombrich - 2006
书页
书内第 193 页
核查结论
不必等该会官方史：两本已足，且一正一反。（一）成立年 · 确。Gombrich《Theravāda Buddhism: A Social History》2nd ed.（Routledge, 2006）書 193：「T.W. Rhys Davids, who had been a colonial administrator in Ceylon, founded the Pali Text Society in London in 1881」。冈布里奇本人曾任该会会长（该书作者简介所记），此说不待外求。（二）「是南传文献研究的基础」· 确，且原文说得更具体：同句
核查全文
续作「and printed the Canon in roman characters before it had been printed in Sinhala characters; moreover, the Pali Text Society began issuing English translations of canonical texts while most of them were unavailable in Sinhala」。即：这份「基础」同时是一次转手——南传文献先经欧洲学界以罗马字排定、再由英译流通，而其时本地的僧伽罗字本與僧伽罗语译本反未齐备。此层已写进脚注。（三）并补批评的一侧：Charles Hallisey 一文（收 Lopez 編《Curators of the Buddha》，Chicago, 1995）書 34 记里斯·戴维斯近年因所谓「Pali Text Society mentality」受责，谓其「essentialized Buddhism in terms of its 'pristine' teachings」；哈利西同时不抹其功，谓其所制工具「remain to this day unsurpassed and indispensable for research」，所立机构「from which all students of Buddhism still benefit」。两面并记，免得表中一句读成单纯的褒。
按
成立年與其作用的出处。全句作 T.W. Rhys Davids, who had been a colonial administrator in Ceylon, founded the Pali Text Society in London in 1881 and printed the Canon in roman characters before it had been printed in Sinhala characters; moreover, the Pali Text Society began issuing English translations of canonical texts while most of them were unavailable in Sinhala。。
Curators of the Buddha The Study of Buddhism under Colonialism - Donald S. Lopez Jr. 編 - 1995
书页
书内第 34 页
核查结论
不必等该会官方史：两本已足，且一正一反。（一）成立年 · 确。Gombrich《Theravāda Buddhism: A Social History》2nd ed.（Routledge, 2006）書 193：「T.W. Rhys Davids, who had been a colonial administrator in Ceylon, founded the Pali Text Society in London in 1881」。冈布里奇本人曾任该会会长（该书作者简介所记），此说不待外求。（二）「是南传文献研究的基础」· 确，且原文说得更具体：同句
核查全文
续作「and printed the Canon in roman characters before it had been printed in Sinhala characters; moreover, the Pali Text Society began issuing English translations of canonical texts while most of them were unavailable in Sinhala」。即：这份「基础」同时是一次转手——南传文献先经欧洲学界以罗马字排定、再由英译流通，而其时本地的僧伽罗字本與僧伽罗语译本反未齐备。此层已写进脚注。（三）并补批评的一侧：Charles Hallisey 一文（收 Lopez 編《Curators of the Buddha》，Chicago, 1995）書 34 记里斯·戴维斯近年因所谓「Pali Text Society mentality」受责，谓其「essentialized Buddhism in terms of its 'pristine' teachings」；哈利西同时不抹其功，谓其所制工具「remain to this day unsurpassed and indispensable for research」，所立机构「from which all students of Buddhism still benefit」。两面并记，免得表中一句读成单纯的褒。
按
批评的一侧，出 Charles Hallisey 一文。谓里斯·戴维斯近年因所谓 Pali Text Society mentality 受责，essentialized Buddhism in terms of its pristine teachings；同页又谓其所制工具 remain to this day unsurpassed and indispensable for research。。此本 有断字（essentialized 作 essentialized ed），检索宜取短串。
三项俱坐实，且导论的原语比正文更锋利，可径引。（一）「东方学建构『纯粹佛教』」· 确。导论谓印度佛教因其「long dead」而得列为古典，「This classical Buddhism was known by [诸] names: 'original Buddhism,' 'primitive Buddhism,' sometimes 'pure Buddhism'」。（二）「挑战统一佛教本质」· 确，导论正面拆解此本质：「Buddhism, its texts deposited in the libraries of Europe, c
核查全文
ould be constituted as an object that, as Philip Almond puts it, existed 'over and against the various cultures which can now be perceived as instancing it'」；「Buddhism could be construed as a transhistorical and self-identical essence that had benevolently descended on various cultures… its instantiations, however, always imperfect」；「This invention of an authentic Buddhism in Europe was then naturalized… This hypostatized object, called 'Buddhism,' because it had been created by Europe, could also be controlled by it」。末一句尤利：欧洲造出它，因而能控制它。 正文若要一句立骨，取此。全书 Orientalis- 一百六十九见。（三）「影响亚洲改革者」· 确，其例即 Sharf 一章论铃木大拙承 Carus 之绪：「he continued to imbibe Carus's philosophical monism, his belief in the essential unity of all religions, and his view of pure Buddhism…」。（四）括注「各个传统学术建构的案例研究」亦对，目次可证：二、Abe 论佛教艺术与西方；三、Sharf 论日本民族主义之禅（書 107）；四、Benavides 论法西斯时代的图齐佛学（書 161）；五、Gómez 论荣格与印度；六、Lopez 论西藏学。
[0682] Theravada Buddhism A social history from ancient Benares to modern Colombo - Richard F. Gombrich - 2006
书页
書 193（版心作 Protestant Buddhism 193）
核查结论
判确，两处引文与两处页码全对，负判亦无。 moreover, the Pali Text Society began issuing English translations of canonical texts while most of them were unavailable in Sinhala」，与脚注所引三处黑体分毫不差；该页版心即印 193。其上文并可补一层：这一段是接着讲斯里兰卡佛教基要主义「received an impetus from western scholarship」而来的，正与脚注所说「这份基础因此同时是一次转手」同一指向。（二）「冈布里奇曾任该会会长」有据：该书作者简介作「He has been President of the Pali Text Society」，脚注不诬。
核查全文
脚注的分寸不误：哈利西是转述他人之责（「has recently been subjected to scorn」），非自下此判，脚注作「近年因所谓……受责」正合。
按
脚注所记巴利圣典协会成立年與其作用之据。记一处易混：该串在本书另有一见，在卷首〈Acknowledgments and further reading〉（罗马页 x），非正文，引用须取 書 193 这一处。
