2.  If there were ever another and larger account of Fa-hien’s travels than the narrative of which a translation is now given, it has long ceased to be in existence.

In the Catalogue of the imperial library of the Suy dynasty (A.D. 589-618), the name Fa-hien occurs four times.  Towards the end of the last section of it (page 22), after a reference to his travels, his labours in translation at Kin-ling (another name for Nanking), in conjunction with Buddha-bhadra, are described.  In the second section, page 15, we find “A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms;”—­with a note, saying that it was the work of the “Sramana, Fa-hien;” and again, on page 13, we have “Narrative of Fa-hien in two Books,” and “Narrative of Fa-hien’s Travels in one Book.”  But all these three entries may possibly belong to different copies of the same work, the first and the other two being in separate subdivisions of the Catalogue.

In the two Chinese copies of the narrative in my possession the title is “Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms.”  In the Japanese or Corean recension subjoined to this translation, the title is twofold; first, “Narrative of the Distinguished Monk, Fa-hien;” and then, more at large, “Incidents of Travels in India, by the Sramana of the Eastern Tsin, Fa-hien, recorded by himself.”

There is still earlier attestation of the existence of our little work than the Suy Catalogue.  The Catalogue Raisonne of the imperial library of the present dynasty (chap. 71) mentions two quotations from it by Le Tao-yuen, a geographical writer of the dynasty of the Northern Wei (A.D. 386-584), one of them containing 89 characters, and the other 276; both of them given as from the “Narrative of Fa-hien.”

In all catalogues subsequent to that of Suy our work appears.  The evidence for its authenticity and genuineness is all that could be required.  It is clear to myself that the “Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms” and the “Narrative of his Travels by Fa-hien” were designations of one and the same work, and that it is doubtful whether any larger work on the same subject was ever current.  With regard to the text subjoined to my translation, it was published in Japan in 1779.  The editor had before him four recensions of the narrative; those of the Sung and Ming dynasties, with appendixes on the names of certain characters in them; that of Japan; and that of Corea.  He wisely adopted the Corean text, published in accordance with a royal rescript in 1726, so far as I can make out; but the different readings of the other texts are all given in top-notes, instead of foot-notes as with us, this being one of the points in which customs in the east and west go by contraries.  Very occasionally, the editor indicates by a single character, equivalent to “right” or “wrong,” which reading in his opinion is to be preferred.  In the notes to the present republication of the Corean text, S stands for Sung, M for Ming, and J for Japanese; R for right, and W for wrong.  I have taken the trouble to give all the various readings (amounting to more than 300), partly as a curiosity and to make my text complete, and partly to show how, in the transcription of writings in whatever language, such variations are sure to occur,