outhern mandarin must be a shade nearer to it than that of Peking at
the present day. In transliterating the Indian names I have for the
most part followed Dr. Eitel, with such modification as seemed good
and in harmony with growing usage.

For the Notes I can do little more than claim the merit of selection
and condensation. My first object in them was to explain what in the
text required explanation to an English reader. All Chinese texts, and
Buddhist texts especially, are new to foreign students. One has to do
for them what many hundreds of the ablest scholars in Europe have done
for the Greek and Latin Classics during several hundred years, and
what the thousands of critics and commentators have been doing of
our Sacred Scriptures for nearly eighteen centuries. There are few
predecessors in the field of Chinese literature into whose labours
translators of the present century can enter. This will be received, I
hope, as a sufficient apology for the minuteness and length of some of
the notes. A second object in them was to teach myself first, and then
others, something of the history and doctrines of Buddhism. I have
thought that they might be learned better in connexion with a lively
narrative like that of Fa-Hsien than by reading didactic descriptions
and argumentative books. Such has been my own experience. The books
which I have consulted for these notes have been many, besides Chinese
works. My principal help has been the full and masterly handbook of
Eitel, mentioned already, and often referred to as E.H. Spence Hardy's
"Eastern Monachism" (E.M.) and "Manual of Buddhism" (M.B.) have been
constantly in hand, as well as Rhys Davids' Buddhism, published by the
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, his Hibbert Lectures,
and his Buddhist Suttas in the Sacred Books of the East, and other
writings. I need not mention other authorities, having endeavoured
always to specify them where I make use of them. My proximity and
access to the Bodleian Library and the Indian Institute have been of
great advantage.

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