Chapter 13

If w[i] reflekt a litel, w[i] shal s[i] that the filolojikal konsepshon ov a vouel iz s[u]m[t]i[n] t[o]tali diferent from its piurli akoustik or deialektik konsepshon. The former iz ch[i]fli konsernd with the sf[i]r ov posibel v[e]ri[e]shon, and the later with the piurli fenomenal individiualiti ov [i]ch vouel. Tu the filolojist, the [t]rj[i] vouelz in _septimus_, for instans, hwotever th[e]r ekzakt pron[u]nsi[e]shonz m[e] hav b[i]n at diferent teimz, and in diferent provinsez ov the R[o]man Empeir, ar p[o]tenshali w[u]n and the s[e]m. W[i] luk on _septimus_ and ἕβύοώος az on Sanskrit _saptamas_, and [o]nli bei n[o]i[n] that _e_, _i_, and _u_ in _septimus_ ar [w]l reprezentativz ov a short _a_, or that _optimus_ standz for the m[o]r [e]nshent _optumus_ and _optomos_, d[ue] w[i] t[e]k in at w[u]n glans the h[o]l histori and posibel v[e]ri[e]shon ov th[i]z vouelz in diferent la[n]gwejez and deialekts. [I]ven hw[e]r a vouel disap[i]rz kompl[i]tli, az in _gigno_ for _gigeno_, in πίπτω for πιπευω the mentl ei ov the filolojist disérnz and w[e]z hwot n[o] [i]r kan h[i]r. And hweil in th[i]z k[e]sez the etimolojist, disregardi[n] the kl[i]rest vareieti ov pron[u]nsi[e]shon, tr[i]ts s[u]ch vouelz az _a_, _e_, _i_, _o_, _u_ az w[u]n and the s[e]m, in [u]therz hw[e]r t[úe] vouelz s[i]m tu hav ekzaktli the s[e]m sound tu the deialektishan, the filolojist on hiz part pers[i]vz diferensez ov the gr[e]test importans. The _i_ in _fides_ and _cliens_ m[e] hav the s[e]m sound az the _i_ in _gigno_ or _septimus_, the _u_ ov _luo_ m[e] not difer from the _u_ in _optumus_ or _lubens_, b[u]t th[e]r intrinsik valiu, th[e]r k[e]pabilitiz ov gr[o][t] and dek[é], ar to t[o]tali diferent in [i]ch. W[i] shal never b[i] [e]bel tu sp[i]k with eni[t]i[n] leik r[i]al seientifik akiurasi ov the pron[u]nsi[e]shon ov [e]nshent la[n]gwejez, b[u]t [i]ven if w[i] luk tu th[e]r riten ap[i]rans [o]nli, w[i] s[i] agén and agén hou vouelz, riten aleik, ar historikali t[o]tali disti[n]kt. Grimm introdiúst the disti[n]kshon betw[i]n _ái_ and _aí_, betw[i]n _áu_ and _aú_, not bek[w]z it iz bei eni m[i]nz serten that the pron[u]nsi[e]shon ov th[i]z dif[t]o[n]z v[e]rid, b[u]t bek[w]z h[i] wisht tu indik[e]t that the antes[i]dents ov _ái_ and _áu_ wer diferent from th[o]z ov _aí_ and _aú_. In Go[t]ik _faíhu_, (Sk. pa_s_u, pecu), _aí_ iz _a_ shortend tu _i_, and br[o]ken bef[o]r _h_ tu _ái_; in Go[t]ik _váit_ (Sk. veda, οἶδα), _ai_, iz radikal _i_ stre[n][t]end tu _ái_. In Go[t]ik _daúhtar_ (Sk. duhitar θυγάτηρ), _aú_ iz radikal _u_ br[o]ken tu _aú_; in _aúhna_ [u]ven (Sk. a_s_na, ἰπνο=ἰκνο=ἀκνο), the _au_ iz _a_, darkend tu _u_, and br[o]ken tu _áu_; hweil in Go[t]ik _báug_ (πέφευγα), _áu_ iz orijinal _u_ stre[n][t]end tu _áu_. Hwen w[i] h[i]r _ê_ and _ô_ in Go[t]ik w[i] s[i] _â_, j[u]st az w[i] s[i] Dorik _ā_ beheind Eionik η. Hwen w[i] h[i]r _c_ in _canis_, w[i] s[i] Sanskrit _s_; hwen w[i] h[i]r _c_ in _cruor_, w[i] s[i] Sanskrit _k_. Hwen w[i] h[i]r γ in γένος, w[i] s[i] [A]rian _g_; hwen w[i] h[i]r γ in φλέγω w[i] s[i] [A]rian _z_.

Th[i]z fiu il[u]str[e]shonz wil ekspl[e]n, ei h[o]p the esenshal diferens in the aplik[e]shon ov f[o]netiks tu filoloji and deialektoloji, and wil sh[o] that in the former our br[u]sh m[u]st ov nesesiti be br[w]d, hweil in the later it m[u]st b[i] fein. It iz bei miksi[n] [u]p t[úe] separ[e]t leinz ov reserch, [i]ch heili important in itself, that s[o] m[u]ch konfiu[z]on haz ov l[e]t b[i]n ok[e][z]ond. The valiu ov piurli f[o]netik obzerv[e]shonz shud on no akount b[i] [u]nderr[e]ted; b[u]t it iz nesesari, for thát veri r[i]zon, that deialektikal az wel az filolojikal f[o]netiks shud b[i] konfeind tu th[e]r proper sf[i]r. The filolojist haz m[u]ch tu lern from the f[o]netishan, b[u]t h[i] shud never forget that h[i]r, az elshw[e]r, hwot iz br[w]d and tipikal iz az important and az seientifikali akiuret az hwot iz miniút and speshal.

Hwot iz br[w]d and tipikal iz often m[o]r akiuret [i]ven than hwot iz miniút and speshal. It meit b[i] posibel, for instans, bei a f[o]tografik proses, tu reprezent the ekzakt pozishon ov the t[u][n] and the inseid w[w]lz ov the mou[t] hweil w[i] pronoúns the Italian vouel _i_. B[u]t it wud b[i] the gr[e]test mist[e]k tu s[u]p[o]z that this imej givz [u]s the [o]nli w[e] in hwich thát vouel iz, and kan b[i], pronoúnst. Th[o] [i]ch individiual m[e] hav hiz [o]n w[e] ov plesi[n] the t[u][n] in pronoúnsi[n] _i_, w[i] hav [o]nli tu trei the experiment in order tu konvins ourselvz that, with s[u]m efort, w[i] m[e] v[e]ri that pozishon in meni w[e]z and yet prodiús the sound ov. _i_. Hwen, th[e]rfor, in mei “Lektiurz on the Seiens ov La[n]gwej,” ei g[e]v piktiurz ov the pozishonz ov the vokal organz rekweird for pronounsi[n] the tipikal leterz ov the alfabet, ei tuk gr[e]t k[e]r tu m[e]k them tipikal, thát iz, tu l[i]v them r[u]f skechez rather than miniút f[o]tografs. Ei kanot beter ekspres hwot ei f[i]l on this point than bei kw[o]ti[n] the w[u]rdz ov Hæckel:—

“For didaktik p[u]rposez, simpel sk[i]matik figiurz ar far m[o]r y[ue]sful than piktiurz prezervi[n] the gr[e]test f[e][t]fulnes tu n[e]tiur and karid out with the gr[e]test akiurasi.” (“Ziele und Wege,” p. 37.)

[The following three letters, now introduced, will complete the Phonetic Alphabet—

[dh] [ch] [sh]

for the sounds heard in—_the_n, _ch_eap, _sh_e.]

Tu ret[u]rn, after [dh]is digre[sh]en, tu Mr. Pitman’z alfabet, ei rep[i]t [dh]at it rekomendz itself tu mei meind bei hwot [u][dh]erz k[w]l its inakiurasi. It [sh]ez its r[i]al and praktikal wizdom bei not atempti[n] tu fiks eni disti[n]k[sh]onz hwi[ch] ar not absol[ue]tli nesesari. If, for instans, w[i] t[e]k [dh]e g[u]t[u]ral teniuis, w[i] feind that I[n]gli[sh] rekogneizez w[u]n _k_ [o]nli, [w]l[dh]e its pron[u]nsi[e][sh]on v[e]riz konsiderabli. It iz s[u]mteimz pronoúnst s[o] az tu prodiús [w]lmost a [sh]arp krak; s[u]mteimz it haz a d[i]p, hol[o] sound; and s[u]mteimz a soft, l[e]zi, _mouillé_ karakter. It v[e]riz konsiderabli akordi[n] tu [dh]e vouelz hwi[ch] fol[o] it, az enibodi m[e] h[i]r, n[e] f[i]l, if h[i] pronoúnsez in s[u]kse[sh]on, _kot_, _k[ue]l_, _kar_, _kat_, _kit_. B[u]t az I[n]gli[sh] d[u]z not y[ue]z [dh][i]z diferent _kz_ for the p[u]rpos ov disti[n]gwi[sh]i[n] w[u]rdz or gramatikal formz, w[u]n br[w]d kategori [o]nli ov voisles g[u]t[u]ral [ch]eks haz tu b[i] admited in reiti[n] I[n]gli[sh]. In [dh]e Semitik la[n]gwejez [dh]e k[e]s iz diferent; not [o]nli ar _kaf_ and _kof_ diferent in sound, b[u]t [dh]is diforens iz y[ue]zd tu disti[n]gwi[sh] diferent m[i]ni[n]z.

Or if w[i] t[e]k [dh]e vouel _a_ in its orijinal, piur pron[u]nsi[e][sh]on, leik Italian _a_, w[i] kan [i]zili pers[i]v [dh]at it haz diferent k[u]lorz in diferent kountiz ov I[n]gland. Yet in reiti[n] it m[e] b[i] tr[i]ted az w[u]n, bek[w]z it haz b[u]t w[u]n and [dh]e s[e]m gramatikal inten[sh]on, and d[u]z not konv[é] a niu m[i]ni[n] til it eks[i]dz its weidest limits. Gud sp[i]kerz in I[n]gland pronoúns [dh]e _a_ in _last_ leik [dh]e piur Italian _a_; wi[dh] [u][dh]erz it bek[u]mz br[w]d, wi[dh] [u][dh]erz [t]in. B[u]t [dh]e it m[e] [dh][u]s osil[e]t konsiderabli, it m[u]st not enkr[o][ch]; on [dh]e provins ov _e_, hwi[ch] wud [ch][e]nj its m[i]ni[n] tu _lest_; nor on [dh]e provins ov _o_, hwk[ch] wud [ch]enj it tu _lost_; nor on [dh]e provins ov _u_, hwi[ch] wud [ch]enj it tu _lust_.

[Dh]e difik[u]lti, [dh]erfor, hwi[ch] Ar[ch]bi[sh]op Trench haz pointed out iz r[i]ali restrikted tu [dh][o]z k[e]sez hwer [dh]e pron[u]nsi[e][sh]on ov vouelz—for it iz wi[dh] vouelz [ch][i]fli [dh]at w[i] ar tr[u]beld—v[e]riz s[o] m[u][ch] az tu [o]verstep [dh]e br[w]dest limits ov w[u]n ov [dh]e rekogneizd kategoriz ov sound, and tu enkr[o][ch] on an[u][dh]er. If w[i] t[e]k [dh]e w[u]rd _fast_, hwi[ch] iz pronoúnst veri diferentli [i]ven bei ediuk[e]ted p[i]pel, [dh]er wud b[i] no nesesiti for indiketi[n] in reiti[n] [dh]e diferent [sh][e]dz ov pron[u]nsi[e][sh]on hwi[ch] lei betw[i]n [dh]e sound ov [dh]e [sh]ort Italian _a_ and [dh]e lo[n] _a_ herd in _father_. B[u]t hwen [dh]e _a_ in _fast_ iz pronoúnst leik [dh]e _a_ in _fat_, [dh]en [dh]e nesesiti ov a niu grafik eksp[o]nent wud areiz, and Ar[ch]bi[sh]op Trench wud b[i] reit in twiti[n] f[o]netik reformerz wi[dh] sa[n]k[sh]oni[n] t[úe] speli[n]z for [dh]e s[e]m w[u]rd.

Ei kud men[sh]on [dh]e n[e]mz ov [t]r[i] bi[sh]ops, w[u]n ov h[ue]m pronoúnst [dh]e vouel in _God_ leik _G[w]d_, an[u][dh]er leik _rod_, a [t]erd leik _gad_. [Dh]e last pron[u]nsi[e][sh]on wud probabli b[i] kondemd bei everibodi, b[u]t [dh]e [u][dh]er t[ú] wud rem[e]n sa[n]k[sh]ond bei [dh]e heiest [w][t]oriti, and [dh]erfor ret[e]nd in fonetik reiti[n].

S[o] far, [dh]en, ei admit [dh]at Ar[ch]bi[sh]op Trench haz pointed out a r[i]al difik[u]lti inh[i]rent in f[o]netik reiti[n]; b[u]t hwot iz [dh]at w[u]n difik[u]lti komp[e]rd wi[dh] [dh]e difik[u]ltiz ov [dh]e prezent sistem ov I[n]gli[sh] speli[n]? It wud not b[i] onest tu trei tu ev[e]d hiz [ch]arj, bei s[e]i[n] [dh]at [dh]er iz b[u]t w[u]n pron[u]nsi[e][sh]on rekogneizd bei [dh]e y[ue]zej ov ediuk[e]ted p[i]pel. [Dh]át iz not so, and [dh][o]z h[ue] n[o] best [dh]e beioloji ov la[n]gwej, no [dh]at it kan[o]t b[i] s[o]. [Dh]e veri leif ov la[n]gwej konsists in a konstant fri[sh]on betw[i]n [dh]e sentripetal f[o]rs ov k[u]stom and [dh]e sentrifiugal fors ov individiual fr[i]dom. Agenst [dh]at difik[u]lti [dh][e]rfor, [dh]er iz n[o] remedi. [O]nli h[i]r agen [dh]e Ar[ch]bi[sh]op s[i]mz tu hav overlukt [dh]e fakt [dh]at [dh]e difik[u]lti belo[n]z tu [dh]e prezent sistem ov speli[n] n[i]rli az m[u][ch] az tu [dh]e fonetik sistem. [Dh]er iz b[u]t w[u]n rekogneizd w[e] ov speli[n], b[u]t everibodi pronoúnsez akordi[n] tu hiz [o]n idiosinkrasiz. It wud b[i] [dh]e s[e]m wi[dh] f[o]netik speli[n]. W[u]n pron[u]nsie[sh]on, [dh]e best rekogneizd, wud hav tu b[i] adopted az a standard in fonetik reiti[n], l[i]vi[n] tu everi Ingli[sh]man hiz fr[i]dom tu pronoúns az s[i]me[t] gud tu him. W[i] [sh]ud l[ue]z n[u][t]i[n] ov hwot w[i] nou pozés, and [w]l [dh]e advantejez ov f[o]netik reiti[n] wud rem[e]n [u]nimp[e]rd. [Dh]e r[i]al st[e]t ov [dh]e k[e]s iz, [dh][e]rfor, [dh]is—N[o]w[u]n defendz [dh]e prezent sistem ov speli[n]; everiw[u]n admits [dh]e s[i]ri[u]s injuri hwi[ch] it inflikts on na[sh]onal ediuk[e][sh]on. Everibodi admits [dh]e praktikal advantejez ov fonetik speli[n], b[u]t after [dh]át, [w]l eksklem [dh]at a reform ov speli[n], hw[o]der par[sh]al or kompl[i]t, iz imposibel. Hwe[dh]er it iz imposibel or not, ei gladli l[i]v tu men ov de w[u]rld tu deseid. Az a skolar, az a stiudent ov [dh]e histori ov la[n]gwej, ei simpli m[e]nten [dh]at in everi riten la[n]gwej a reform ov speli[n] iz, s[ue]nler or l[e]ter, inevitabel. N[o] dout [dh]e [i]vil d[e] m[e] b[i] put of. Ei hav litel dout [dh]at it wil b[i] put of for meni jener[e][sh]onz, and [dh]at a r[i]al reform wil probabli not b[i] karid eksept konk[u]rentli wi[dh] a veiolent so[sh]al konv[u]l[sh]on. Onli let [dh]e kwestion b[i] argiud f[e]rli. Let fakts hav s[u]m w[e]t, and let it not b[i] s[u]p[o]zd bei men ov [dh]e w[u]rld [dh]at [dh]oz h[ue] defend [dh]e prinsipelz ov [dh]e _Fonetik Niuz_ ar [o]nli t[i]totalerz and vejet[e]rianz, h[ue] hav never lernd hou tu spel.

If ei hav sp[o]ken stro[n]li in s[u]port ov Mr. Pitman’z sistem, it iz not bek[w]z on [w]l points ei konsider it siup[i]rior tu [dh]e sistemz prep[e]rd bei [u][dh]er reformerz, h[ue] ar d[e]li inkr[i]si[n] in n[u]mber, b[u]t [ch][i]fli bek[w]z it haz b[i]n tested so larjli, and haz stud [dh]e test wel. Mr. Pitman’z _F[o]netik J[u]rnal_ haz nou [1880] b[i]n p[u]bli[sh]t [t]erti-[e]t y[i]rz, and if it iz non [dh]at it iz p[u]bli[sh]t w[i]kli in 12,000 kopiz, [i][ch] kopi reprezenti[n] at l[i]st for or feiv r[i]derz, it m[e] not s[i]m so veri f[ue]li[sh], after [w]l, if w[i] imajin [dh]at [dh]er iz s[u]m veital pouer in [dh]át insiguifikant jerm.]

V.

ON SANSKRIT TEXTS DISCOVERED IN JAPAN.

Read At The Meeting Of The Royal Asiatic Society, February 16, 1880.

It is probably in the recollection of some of the senior members of this Society how wide and deep an interest was excited in the year 1853 by the publication of Stanislas Julien’s translation of the “Life and Travels of Hiouen-thsang.” The account given by an eye-witness of the religious, social, political, and literary state of India at the beginning of the seventh century of our era was like a rocket, carrying a rope to a whole crew of struggling scholars, on the point of being drowned in the sea of Indian chronology; and the rope was eagerly grasped by all, whether their special object was the history of Indian religion, or the history of Indian literature, architecture, or politics. While many books on Indian literature, published five-and-twenty years ago, are now put aside and forgotten, Julien’s three volumes of Hiouen-thsang still maintain a fresh interest, and supply new subjects for discussion, as may be seen even in the last number of the Journal of your Society.

I had the honor and pleasure of working with Stanislas Julien, when he was compiling those large lists of Sanskrit and Chinese words which formed the foundation of his translation of Hiouen-thsang, and enabled him in his classical work, the “Méthode pour déchiffrer et transcrire les noms Sanskrits” (1861), to solve a riddle which had puzzled Oriental scholars for a long time—viz., how it happened that the original Sanskrit names had been so completely disguised and rendered almost unrecognizable in the Chinese translations of Sanskrit texts, and how they could be restored to their original form.

I had likewise the honor and pleasure of working with your late President, Professor H. H. Wilson, when, after reading Julien’s works, he conceived the idea that some of the original Sanskrit texts of which the Chinese translations had been recovered might still be found in the monasteries of China. His influential position as President of your Society, and his personal relations with Sir John Bowring, then English Resident in China, enabled him to set in motion a powerful machinery for attaining his object; and if you look back some five-and-twenty years, you will find in your Journal a full account of the correspondence that passed between Professor Wilson, Sir J. Bowring, and Dr. Edkins, on the search after Sanskrit MSS. in the temples or monasteries of China.

On February 15, 1854, Professor Wilson writes from Oxford to Sir John Bowring:—

“I send you herewith a list of the Sanskrit works carried to China by Hwen Tsang in the middle of the seventh century, and in great part translated by him, or under his supervision, into Chinese. If any of them, _especially the originals_, should be still in existence, you would do good service to Sanskrit literature and to the history of Buddhism by procuring copies.”

_Chinese Translators of Sanskrit Texts._

It is a well-known fact that, even long before the time of Hiouen-thsang—that is, long before the seventh century of our era—large numbers of Sanskrit MSS. had been exported to China. These literary exportations began as early as the first century A. D. When we read for the first time of commissioners being sent to India by Ming-ti, the Emperor of China, the second sovereign of the Eastern Han dynasty, about 62 or 65 A. D., we are told that they returned to China with a white horse, carrying books and images.(72) And the account proceeds to state that “these books still remain, and are reverenced and worshipped.”

From that time, when Buddhism was first officially recognized in China,(73) there is an almost unbroken succession of importers and translators of Buddhist, in some cases of Brahmanic texts also, till we come to the two famous expeditions, the one undertaken by Fa-hian in 400-415, the other by Hiouen-thsang, 629-645 A. D. Fa-hian’s Travels were translated into French by Abel Rémusat (1836), into English by Mr. Beal (1869). Hiouen-thsang’s Travels are well known through Stanislas Julien’s admirable translation. Of Hiouen-thsang we are told that he brought back from India no less than 520 fasciculi, or 657 separate works, which had to be carried by twenty-two horses.(74) He translated, or had translated, 740 works, forming 1,335 fasciculi.

I say nothing of earlier traces of Buddhism which are supposed to occur in Chinese books. Whatever they may amount to, we look in vain in them for evidence of any Chinese translations of Buddhist books before the time of the Emperor Ming-ti; and what concerns us at present is, not the existence or the spreading of Buddhism towards the north and east long before the beginning of the Christian era, but the existence of Buddhist books, so far as it can be proved at that time by the existence of Chinese translations the date of which can be fixed with sufficient certainty.

In the following remarks on the history of these translations I have had the great advantage of being able to use the Annals of the Sui Dynasty (589-618), kindly translated for me by Professor Legge. In China the history of each dynasty was written under the succeeding dynasty from documents which may be supposed to be contemporaneous with the events they relate. The account given in the Sui Chronicles of the introduction of Buddhism and Buddhist works into China is said to be the best general account to be found in early Chinese literature, and the facts here stated may be looked upon as far more trustworthy than the notices hitherto relied upon, and collected from Chinese writers of different dates and different localities. I have also had the assistance of Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio, who compared the names of the translators mentioned in the Sui Annals with the names as given in the K’ai-yuen-shih-kiao-mu-lu (Catalogue of the Buddhist books compiled in the period K’ai-yuen [A. D. 713-741]); and though there still remain some doubtful points, we may rest assured that the dates assigned to the principal Chinese translators and their works can be depended on as historically trustworthy.

With regard to the period anterior to Ming-ti, the Sui Chronicles tell us that after an investigation of the records, it was known that Buddhism had not been brought to China previously to the Han dynasty (began 206 B. C.), though some say that it had long been spread abroad, but had disappeared again in the time of the _Kh_in(75) (221-206 B. C.). Afterwards, however, when _K_ang-_kh_ien was sent on a mission to the regions of the West (about 130 B. C.), he is supposed to have become acquainted with the religion of Buddha. He was made prisoner by the Hiungnu (Huns),(76) and, being kept by them for ten years, he may well have acquired during his captivity some knowledge of Buddhism, which at a very early time had spread from Cabul(77) towards the north and the east.

In the time of the Emperor Âi (B. C. 6-2) we read that _Kh_in-_k_ing caused I-tsun to teach the Buddhist Sûtras orally, but that the people gave no credence to them. All this seems to rest on semi-historical evidence only.

The first official recognition of Buddhism in China dates from the reign of the Emperor Ming-ti, and the following account, though not altogether free from a legendary coloring, is generally accepted as authentic by Chinese scholars: “The Emperor Ming-ti, of the After Han dynasty (58-75 A. D.), dreamt that a man of metal (or golden color) was flying and walking in a courtyard of the palace. When he told his dream in the Court, Fu-î said that the figure was that of Buddha. On this the Emperor sent the gentleman-usher Tsâi-yin and _Kh_in-_k_ing (who must then have been growing old) both to the country of the great Yueh-_k_i(78) and to India, in order to seek for such an image.”

An earlier account of the same event is to be found in the Annals of the After (or Eastern) Han dynasty (25-120 A. D.). These annals were compiled by Fan-yeh, who was afterwards condemned to death as a rebel (445 A. D.). Here we read(79) (vol. 88, fol. 8 a _seq._): “There is a tradition that the Emperor Ming-ti (58-75 A. D.) dreamt that there was a giant-like man of golden color,(80) whose head was refulgent. The Emperor wanted his retainers to interpret it. Then some said, ‘There is a god (or spirit) in the West who is called Fo, whose height is sixteen feet, and of golden color.’ Having heard this, the Emperor at once sent messengers to Tien-_k_u (_i. e._ India), to inquire after the doctrine of Buddha. Subsequently, copies of the image of Buddha were drawn in the middle country (_i. e._ China).”

The emissaries whom the Emperor Ming-ti had sent to India obtained a Buddhist Sûtra in forty-two sections, and an image of Buddha, with which and the Shâmans Kâ_s_yapa Mâtaṅga and _K_û-fa-lan, they returned to the East. When Tsâi-yin approached (the capital), he caused the book to be borne on a white horse, and on this account the monastery of the White Horse was built on the west of the Yung gate of the city of Lo to lodge it. The classic was tied up and placed in the stone house of the Lan tower, and, moreover, pictures of the image were drawn and kept in the _Kh_ing-yüan tower, and at the top of the Hsien-_k_ieh hill.

Here we seem to be on _terra firma_, for some of the literary works by Kâsyapa Mâtaṅga and _K_û-fa-lan are still in existence. Kâsyapa Mâtaṅga (or, it may be, Kâsya Mâtaṅga(81)) is clearly a Sanskrit name. Mâtaṅga, though the name of a _K_andâla or low-caste man, might well be borne by a Buddhist priest.(82) The name of _K_û-fa-lan, however, is more difficult. Chinese scholars declare that it can only be a Chinese name,(83) yet if _K_û-fa-lan came from India with _K_âsyapa, we should expect that he too bore a Sanskrit name. In that case, _K_û might be taken as the last character of Tien-_k_û, India, which character is prefixed to the names of other Indian priests living in China. His name would be Fâ-lan, _i. e._ Dharma + x, whatever lan may signify, perhaps padma, lotus.(84)

M. Feer,(85) calls him Gobhara_n_a, without, however, giving his authority for such a name. The Sutra of the forty-two sections exists in Chinese, but neither in Sanskrit nor in Pâli, and many difficulties would be removed if we admitted, with M. Feer, that this so-called Sûtra of the forty-two sections was really the work of Kâ_s_yapa and _K_û-fa-lan, who considered such an epitome of Buddhist doctrines, based chiefly on original texts, useful for their new converts in China.

It is curious that the Sui Annals speak here of no other literary work due to Kâ_s_yapa and _K_û-fa-lan, though they afterwards mention the Shih-_k_u _S_ûtra by _K_û-fa-lan as a work almost unintelligible. In the Fan-i-ming-i-tsi (vol. iii. fol. 4 b), mention is made of five Sûtras, translated by _K_û-fa-lan alone, after Kâ_s_yapa’s death. In the K’ai-yuen-shih-kiao-mu-lu catalogue of the Buddhist books, compiled in the period K’ai-yuen (713-741 A. D.), vol. i. fol. 6, four Sûtras only are ascribed to _K_û-fa-lan:—

1. The Da_s_abhûmi, called the Sûtra on the destruction of the causes of perplexity in the ten stations; 70 A. D. This is the Shi-_k_û Sûtra.

2. The Sûtra of the treasure of the sea of the law (Dharma-samudra-kosha?).

3. The Sûtra of the original conduct of Buddha (Fo-pen-hing-king); 68 A. D. (taken by Julien for a translation of the Lalita-vistara).

4. The Sûtra of the original birth of Buddha (_G_âtaka).

The compiler of the catalogue adds that these translations have long been lost.

The next patron of Buddhism was Ying, the King of _Kh_û, at the time of the Emperor _K_ang, his father (76-88). Many Shâmans, it is said, came to China then from the Western regions, bringing Buddhist Sûtras. Some of these translations, however, proved unintelligible.