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 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 mentions two quotations from it by Le Tao-yueen, a
geographical writer of the dynasty of the Northern Wei (A.D. 386-584),
one of them containing eighty-nine characters, and the other two hundred
and seventy-six; 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 appendices 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.

The editors of the "Catalogue Raisonne" intimate their doubts of the
good taste and reliability of all Fa-hien's statements. It offends them
that he should call central India the "Middle Kingdom," and China, which
to them was the true and only Middle Kingdom, but "a Border-land"--it
offends them as the vaunting language of a Buddhist writer, whereas the
reader will see in the expressions only an instance of what Fa-hien
calls his "simple straightforwardness."

As an instance of h