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, after a reference to his travels, his labors in translation at Kin-ling (another name for Nanking), in conjunction with Buddha-bhadra, are described.  In the second section we find “A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms”—­with a note, saying that it was the work of “the Sramana, Fa-hien”; and again, 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 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.”