I may be allowed to say that, so far as my own study of it has gone, I think there are many things in the vast field of Buddhist literature which still require to be carefully handled.  How far, for instance, are we entitled to regard the present Sutras as genuine and sufficiently accurate copies of those which were accepted by the Councils before our Christian era?  Can anything be done to trace the rise of the legends and marvels of Sakyamuni’s history, which were current so early (as it seems to us) as the time of Fa-hien, and which startle us so frequently by similarities between them and narratives in our Gospels?  Dr. Hermann Oldenberg, certainly a great authority on Buddhistic subjects, says that “a biography of Buddha has not come down to us from ancient times, from the age of the Pali texts; and, we can safely say, no such biography existed then” ("Buddha—­His Life, His Doctrine, His Order,” as translated by Hoey, p. 78).  He has also (in the same work, pp. 99, 416, 417) come to the conclusion that the hitherto unchallenged tradition that the Buddha was “a king’s son” must be given up.  The name “king’s son” (in Chinese {...}), always used of the Buddha, certainly requires to be understood in the highest sense.  I am content myself to wait for further information on these and other points, as the result of prolonged and careful research.

Dr. Rhys Davids has kindly read the proofs of the Translation and Notes, and I most certainly thank him for doing so, for his many valuable corrections in the Notes, and for other suggestions which I have received from him.  I may not always think on various points exactly as he does, but I am not more forward than he is to say with Horace,—­

“Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri.”

I have referred above, and also in the Introduction, to the Corean text of Fa-hien’s narrative, which I received from Mr. Nanjio.  It is on the whole so much superior to the better-known texts, that I determined to attempt to reproduce it at the end of the little volume, so far as our resources here in Oxford would permit.  To do so has not been an easy task.  The two fonts of Chinese types in the Clarendon Press were prepared primarily for printing the translation of our Sacred Scriptures, and then extended so as to be available for printing also the Confucian Classics; but the Buddhist work necessarily requires many types not found in them, while many other characters in the Corean recension are peculiar in their forms, and some are what Chinese dictionaries denominate “vulgar.”  That we have succeeded so well as we have done is owing chiefly to the intelligence, ingenuity, and untiring attention of Mr. J. C. Pembrey, the Oriental Reader.

The pictures that have been introduced were taken from a superb edition of a History of Buddha, republished recently at Hang-chau in Cheh-kiang, and profusely illustrated in the best style of Chinese art.  I am indebted for the use of it to the Rev. J. H. Sedgwick, University Chinese Scholar.