Pathway to Japanese Literature

I published a paper titled "On the Nestorian Stele of Daqin in Xi’an Prefecture" in the April issue of Geibun in Meiji 43 (1910). Subsequently, in June of Taisho 12 (1923), at a Historical Research Society meeting held to commemorate the arrival of a replica of the Nestorian Stele at Kyoto Imperial University, I delivered a lecture titled "On the Nestorian Stele of Daqin in China." The paper presented here was a newly created synthesis combining my earlier paper and lecture into a single cohesive work.

The Nestorian Stele introduced here—to elaborate, the Nestorian Stele of Daqin in China—was constructed during the Tang Dynasty, being an ancient monument related to Nestorianism (Nestor’s sect of Christianity) that prevailed in China at that time, and still exists today in Xi’an Prefecture, Shaanxi Province, China (Chang’an County, Guanzhong Circuit under the Republic of China). Nestorianism was commonly referred to as Jingjiao ("Luminous Teaching") in China but was also called the Mishia (meaning Messiah) sect. In Chinese records, the term "Mishia" (Messiah) is assigned Chinese characters such as 彌尸訶 (from the Zhenyuan Newly Compiled Buddhist Catalog), 彌施訶 (from the Nestorian Stele), or 彌失訶 (from the Comprehensive Records of Buddhist Patriarchs Through the Ages). In China, besides this Nestorian Stele, there are also ancient steles related to Mohammedanism. There are also ancient steles related to Judaism. However, whether viewed from the antiquity of its date, the richness of its content, or the excellence of its text and script, this Nestorian Stele surpasses all ancient steles related to Mohammedanism and Judaism in every aspect.

In any case, as an ancient stele related to Christianity, it attracted global attention from early times and became the most internationally renowned among all Chinese steles. Since its excavation in the late Ming period, books and papers concerning this ancient stele's history and interpretation had grown so numerous that they could have filled ox-drawn carts and overflowed houses. Western literature on the subject was largely introduced in Heller's *The Nestorian Stele of Xi'an Prefecture* (1), while Cordier's *Chinese Bibliography* provided even more comprehensive coverage (2). Chinese literature on the subject was represented by Yang Rong※'s (金+志) *Critical Examination of Historical Accounts on the Nestorian Stele Inscription* from the Qing Dynasty and Wylie's paper "The Nestorian Stele of Xi'an Prefecture" (3). This abundance of related books and papers was, after all, one piece of evidence that this Nestorian Stele was highly regarded by the world, I believe.

Now, Jingjiao—that is, Nestorianism—was a sect of Christianity advocated by Nestorius, who emerged in the first half of the fifth century CE. Nestorius advanced a novel interpretation concerning the Trinity. According to his doctrine, Christ constituted nothing more than a human being endowed with divinity. Consequently, he rejected the traditional designation of Mary as Theotokos (Mother of God), insisting instead upon Christotokos (Mother of Christ) (4). At the Council of Ephesus convened in 431 CE, Nestorius's views were condemned as heretical. Nevertheless, this doctrine proliferated throughout West Asia before subsequently propagating into Central Asia (5). When the Tang Dynasty consolidated China and extended its military campaigns beyond the frontiers, thereby projecting imperial authority across the Western Regions, Alopen first introduced Nestorianism to China during the ninth year of Emperor Taizong's Zhenguan era (635 CE). Subsequently experiencing gradual ascendancy, Nestorianism reached its zenith under Emperor Dezong—Taizong's sixth-generation descendant—during the second year of the Jianzhong era (781 CE). At this time, Jingjing (bearing the Western name Adam), a monk at Chang'an's Daqin Monastery—then serving as the imperial capital's principal Nestorian church—collaborated with Yisi (Western name Izadbuzid?), a Nestorian adherent or possibly cleric who had journeyed from Balkh in Central Asia during the late eighth century to serve the Tang court. Having attained high-ranking positions including Grand Master for Closing Court, Vice Military Commissioner of Shuofang, and Provisional Palace Administrator, Yisi provided patronage for erecting this monument (6), which documented both Nestorian doctrine and the history of its transmission to China.

The stele is composed of black limestone. Excluding the tortoise-shaped pedestal, its height measures approximately nine feet, with an average width of three feet four inches and a thickness of about eleven inches.
The stele face contains thirty-two lines, each consisting of sixty-two characters, with approximately 1,900 Chinese characters engraved in total.
In addition to Chinese characters, some ancient Syriac script—known as Estrangelo (Estrangelo), which was primarily used for missionary purposes at the time—is engraved.
This Syriac script primarily records the names of approximately seventy clergy members associated with Nestorianism, with corresponding Chinese names added to the majority of them.

The interpretation of the Chinese text carved on the stele is exceedingly difficult.
Over twenty years ago, the interpretation of the stele inscription published by Havret, a Jesuit missionary residing in Shanghai, remains the most outstanding (7), though it was left incomplete and is not without certain deficiencies.
However, when viewed broadly, the content of this stele inscription follows a four-part structure as outlined below.

(1) It narrates the creation of heaven and earth, how primordial humans became beings of sin, and Christ's incarnation.

(2) It documents that during Emperor Taizong of Tang's reign, Alopen brought Nestorian scriptures and icons to Chang'an and presented himself at court; that Emperor Taizong accepted him, constructing Daqin Monastery in Yining Ward of Chang'an where twenty-one monks were ordained; that Emperor Gaozong subsequently expanded Nestorian monasteries across various regions; that from Empress Wu Zetian's era through Emperor Ruizong's reign, Nestorianism's fortunes declined somewhat; that under Emperor Xuanzong's patronage, Nestorianism revived; and that through successive reigns of Emperors Suzong, Daizong, and Dezong, its fortunes increasingly prospered.

(3) It narrated the virtuous deeds of Yisi, who donated the funds for this monument’s construction.

(4) It uses verse to praise largely the same matters described in the three preceding sections.

However, interpreting the stele inscription was not the purpose of that day’s lecture.
The purpose of the lecture was to introduce the history of the Nestorian Stele.

Now, merely sixty years after this Nestorian Stele’s construction came the era of Emperor Wuzong—Emperor Dezong’s great-great-grandson.
Emperor Wuzong, one of the so-called Three Wu emperors, imposed severe suppression on Buddhism and other foreign religions due to his excessive devotion to Daoism. In the fifth year of Huichang (845 CE), he compelled over two thousand—or even three thousand—clergy members comprising both Nestorian and Zoroastrian practitioners to return to secular life, while repatriating many foreign-born clergy to their home countries.
I surmise it was likely during this period that Daqin Monastery in Yining Ward was demolished and the Nestorian Stele presumed erected within its precincts was toppled.
Of course, contemporary records contain no explicit mention of the stele’s destruction or its exact date, but no explanation other than this conjecture proves tenable.
In China, inscriptions on ancient steles would typically suffer erosion and damage from various natural and human causes; yet this Nestorian Stele alone remarkably shows no significant deterioration in its surface carvings.
This preservation is recognized as resulting from the stele having been buried underground not long after its erection—thereby protected from natural and human-induced damage—a circumstance that appears to corroborate the aforementioned conjecture.
In any case, throughout Song and Yuan dynasty records, no trace of this Nestorian Stele can be found.

However, when the late Ming period arrived in the early half of the seventeenth century, this Nestorian Stele was excavated from the earth through a chance event and emerged into public awareness.
The circumstances of this ancient stele's excavation were first and most thoroughly communicated to the world through *General History of China* by missionary Semedo, whose account summarizes as follows (8).

In 1625 (the fifth year of Tianqi era of Ming Dynasty), Chinese laborers digging near Xi’an Prefecture—the provincial capital of Shaanxi—to lay foundation stones for new construction accidentally unearthed a stone stele.
The monument measured over nine empan (hand measurement units) in length, four empan in width, and one empan in thickness.
The end forming the stele's head took pyramidal form.
This pyramid section measured over one empan wide at its base and two empan high, bearing on its surface an exquisite cross resembling those carved on St. Thomas’s tomb in Meliapor, India.
Cloud-pattern carvings encircled this cross, beneath which lay three rows containing three large Chinese characters each.
These characters—common throughout China—were carved with exceptional clarity.
While the entire front face bore similar characters, the sides displayed foreign script of different type that none could decipher.

When this notable ancient stele was excavated, the laborers immediately reported the matter to the authorities.
The prefect went to the site and, after inspecting the ancient stele, placed it upon a splendid foundation to protect it from wind and rain. At the same time, to allow free public viewing, he constructed a stele pavilion over it.
As word spread far and wide about the excavation of this rare ancient stele, a great multitude of people gathered in crowds to view the monument.
At this very time, as Christianity had become fairly well-known among the Chinese people, a certain gentleman—possessing some knowledge of Christianity—saw this ancient stele, inferred its connection to Christianity, and sent a rubbing of it to his friend residing in Hangzhou Prefecture, Zhejiang Province: a Christian official with the baptismal name Leon.
This stele rubbing brought the missionaries residing in Hangzhou Prefecture at the time joy beyond their imagination.

This Semedo bore the Chinese name Ludezhao.
He journeyed to Xi'an in 1628 CE and devoted himself to studying the Nestorian Stele through firsthand examination.
Among missionaries residing in China at that time, he stood second only to Trigault (Nicholas Trigault, Jin Ni'ge) in being the earliest to personally inspect the actual Nestorian Stele, thereby earning substantial credibility. Consequently, within Western academic circles addressing the stele's excavation circumstances, Semedo's account came to be regarded as authoritative, with scarcely any scholars voicing dissent.
Yet beyond Semedo's record, alternative theories concerning this ancient stele's excavation site, circumstances, and dating do exist.
While discrepancies in excavation details constitute trivial matters unworthy of particular consideration, variances in location and chronology necessitate proper verification.
Regarding the excavation date specifically, apart from Semedo's account, there remain at least three divergent theories as enumerated below.

(1) Qian Qianyi’s *Jingjiao Kao* (Study of Nestorianism) (contained in Volume 44 of *Mu Zhai You Xue Ji*)—many scholars, including Wylie and Havret, have mistaken this Qian Qianyi for Qian Daxin—records that during the Wanli era of the Ming Dynasty (1573–1620 CE), residents of Chang’an unearthed this stele while plowing the land (9).

(2) Volume II of *Laizhai Jinshi Kaolue* by Lin Tong of the early Qing Dynasty records that during the Chongzhen era of Ming (1628–1644 CE), an official residing in Chang’an, while digging ground near Chongren Temple (Jinsheng Temple) in Chang’an to bury the corpse of his young child, discovered this ancient stele.

(Third) In the preface to Yang Maduo’s *Correct Interpretation of the Inscription on the Tang Nestorian Stele* from the late Ming period, he narrates the circumstances of this stele’s excavation,

In the third year of Tianqi in the Ming Dynasty (1623 CE), officials in Guanzhong ordered the ground excavated.
It was discovered beneath a collapsed wall.

it states.

Among these three theories, the first and second accounts are vague in their dates and not worth adopting; only the third account by Yang Maduo deserves some consideration.
Yang Maduo, whose Western name was Diaz (Emmanuel Diaz), was in Hangzhou Prefecture, Zhejiang Province at the time of the Nestorian Stele’s excavation and was one of the missionaries who obtained a rubbing of this stele at the earliest opportunity.
In the seventeenth year of Chongzhen of the Ming Dynasty (1644 CE), he published at the Catholic church in Hangzhou Prefecture a Chinese-language exegesis of the Nestorian Stele titled *Correct Interpretation of the Inscription on the Tang Nestorian Stele*, in whose preface—as mentioned above—he explicitly states that the stele was excavated in the third year of Tianqi.
While one might suspect this "third year" could be an error for "fifth year," it must be noted that Jesuit publications of that time exercised utmost care—undergoing three rounds of scrutiny before receiving approval for printing. Indeed, this *Correct Interpretation of the Inscription on the Tang Nestorian Stele*—the copy in my possession being a Guangxu fourth-year (1878) reprint—was published only after undergoing editorial review by Yang Maduo’s fellow Jesuits Ferreira (Fei Qigui), Aleni (Ai Rulüe), and Monteiro (Meng Ruwang). Such a work can hardly be thought to contain facile errors.

Furthermore, there exists another essay by Li Zhizao of the Ming titled "Postscript to Reading the Nestorian Stele Inscription." This essay is included in both *Correct Interpretation of the Inscription on the Tang Nestorian Stele* and works such as *Burned Books Beyond the Mundane*. This Li Zhizao stood alongside the renowned Xu Guangqi as one of the most prominent figures among Christian believers of that time. His baptismal name was Leon, and he was known as Leon Li in the records of Westerners from that time. The official residing in Hangzhou Prefecture with the baptismal name Leon mentioned in Semedo’s account introduced above is none other than this Li Zhizao. In his postscript to reading the Nestorian Stele inscription,

Dwelling between Lingyin and Tianzhu (referring to Lingyin Temple and Tianzhu Temple in Hangzhou Prefecture),
Fellow believer Zhang Gengyu of Qiyang kindly sent me a rubbing of the Tang stele.
He stated it had recently been obtained through excavation in Chang'an.
It was named the "Inscription on the Nestorian Stele Propagating in China."
I had never before heard of this religion.
Could this be the holy faith preached by Li Xitai (Matteo Ricci)?
Having read it, I found it indeed to be so,

it states.

This Zhang Gengyu had the baptismal name Paul and was commonly known as Paul Tshang in Westerners' records. If one speaks of being a native of Qiyang, he appears to have been a person under the jurisdiction of Fengxiang Prefecture in Shaanxi Province. He had previously met Matteo Ricci in Beijing and acquired knowledge of Christianity. When rumors of the Nestorian Stele's excavation spread far and wide, he personally traveled to Xi'an to inspect this ancient monument. At that time, as there were no missionaries staying in Shaanxi, he became one of those connected to Christianity who viewed the actual Nestorian Stele at the earliest opportunity. The "certain gentleman possessing knowledge of Christianity" appearing in Semedo's *General History of China* ultimately refers to this Zhang Gengyu. As previously mentioned, Zhang Gengyu took a rubbing of the Nestorian Stele and sent it to Li Zhizao in Hangzhou Prefecture.

At the conclusion of Li Zhizao’s postscript to reading the Nestorian Stele inscription,

The fifth year of Tianqi [1625 CE], cyclical year Yichou (旃蒙赤奮若).
The sun entered the first degree of Shen (the 21st lunar mansion).
Liang'an Jushi Li Wocun.
Having purified my hands, I reverently inscribe this.

As it states, there can be no doubt that this text was written on the sixteenth day of the fourth lunar month (May 21, Gregorian calendar) in the Yichou year of the fifth year of Tianqi (1625 CE) (10).

Now, Fengxiang Prefecture and Hangzhou Prefecture were separated by approximately three thousand five hundred li. Under China's inadequate transportation and communication systems at that time, that Zhang Gengyu deliberately traveled to Xi'an and obtained a rubbing of the Nestorian Stele undeniably indicated that not much time had passed since the stele's excavation. To send that rubbing to Hangzhou Prefecture, separated by over three thousand li by land and water, would have required a considerable amount of time. In fact, Semedo recorded that the journey between Xi'an and Hangzhou took one and a half months. Yet that rubbing arrived in Hangzhou in April of the fifth year of Tianqi [1625]. When synthesizing these circumstances, the excavation of the Nestorian Stele may have occurred no later than early spring of the fifth year of Tianqi, or possibly one or two years prior. Consequently, I find it difficult to categorically dismiss Yang Maduo's Tianqi 3rd year [1623] theory. However, this remains a significant problem that cannot be lightly judged. I shall merely present this as an open question. Incidentally, several years after I published these doubts in Geibun journal, when examining The Christian Monument of Xi'an Prefecture by the previously mentioned missionary Havret, I discovered that Havret also held views largely aligned with mine on this point (11)—a realization that considerably strengthened my conviction, which I hereby note.

Next, regarding the excavation site of the Nestorian Stele: outside Xi’an ※.
In recent times, Havret—the most renowned researcher of the Nestorian Stele—has been an ardent supporter of this theory. Those influenced by him, including the British missionary Moule (13) and our Mr. Saeki Yoshirō (14), have similarly advocated for it; however, I find it ultimately untenable.
I shall briefly state the reasons below.

(1) The monk Jingjing of Daqin Temple who composed this Nestorian Stele inscription must be recognized as a monk of Daqin Temple in Chang'an.
Particularly, Izadbuzid (Yisi?)—the patron or builder of this stele who hailed from Balkh (Wangshecheng)—is explicitly recorded in the Syriac inscription as serving as both priest and archdeacon of Daqin Temple in Chang’an (15).
From the relationship between Jingjing and Izadbuzid, we may infer that this stele was originally erected within the precincts of Daqin Monastery in Yining Ward of Chang'an city proper, and that it was not constructed in the ※（（幸＋攵）／皿）※（厂＋至） region.

(2) There is no evidence whatsoever that Daqin Temple existed in the ※（（幸＋攵）／皿）※（厂＋至） region during the Tang era.
In that ※（（幸＋攵）／皿）※（厂＋至） region, there could be no reason for the Nestorian Stele to have been constructed, could there?

(3) It is ultimately inconceivable that the Nestorian Stele, originally erected in Chang’an, was ever relocated to ※（（幸＋攵）／皿）※（厂＋至） during some era.
Moreover, there exists neither any evidence nor rationale that would make such a transfer theory plausible.

(4) Both Zhang Gengyu and Semedo—who were among the first to personally inspect the Nestorian Stele—explicitly stated that the stele had been unearthed in Chang’an or its vicinity, making no mention of its excavation at ※（（幸＋攵）／皿）※（厂＋至）.

(5) The Jinsheng Temple in Xi'an's western suburbs—where the Nestorian Stele was both excavated and enshrined—according to scholarly research precisely corresponded to the former site of Yining Ward in Chang'an where Daqin Monastery had stood during the Tang Dynasty (16).

(6) While the notion of the Nestorian Stele being excavated from the ※（（幸＋攵）／皿）※（厂＋至） region was utterly implausible, even if we were to suppose—as some believed—that it had indeed been unearthed there and transferred to Xi’an, why would they have enshrined this stele in Jinsheng Temple's rear courtyard, which bore no apparent connection? Though present-day Jinsheng Temple largely corresponds to the Tang-era Daqin Monastery's location, this correlation could only be known through later scholarly research—people of the late Ming period could not have possessed such knowledge. Was it not profoundly remarkable that this haphazardly relocated stele came to rest precisely upon the former site of Tang Dynasty Daqin Monastery?

In short, these circumstances render impossible the theory of the Nestorian Stele’s excavation at ※（（幸＋攵）／皿）※（厂＋至） and must instead be said to confirm beyond doubt the veracity of its Chang’an origin.
In short, we must conclude that the Nestorian Stele was buried within the precincts of Daqin Monastery in Yining Ward of Chang'an where it had originally been erected, subsequently excavated from the precincts of Jinsheng Temple in Xi'an's western suburbs—which corresponds to the former site of that Daqin Monastery—and that it essentially never moved from this location throughout its history (17).

Now, around early in the fifth year of Tianqi during the Ming Dynasty (1625 CE), when the Nestorian Stele was unearthed in Xi'an's suburbs, a Western translation of its inscription soon emerged.
The first produced was a Latin translation created in 1625 by Jesuit missionaries residing in China.
This was likely Trigault's translation (18).
Subsequently, numerous translated versions were published.
According to Italy's Bartoli, by around 1662 CE at least eight translations written in three languages had been made public (19).
Among these, the translations that most broadly influenced society were probably those by Semedo and Boym (Michel Boym 卜彌格).

Semedo personally viewed the Nestorian Stele in Xi'an in 1628 CE, then returned to Europe from Macau in 1637 CE, arriving in Portugal in 1640 CE. His famous *General History of China* was published in Portuguese in Madrid in 1641. Within it, he conveyed more accurate reports concerning the actual circumstances of the Nestorian Stele and appended a translation of this monument. This work was soon translated into Spanish, Italian, French, and English, and read widely throughout the world (20). Approximately ten years later, bearing a mission from the Ming court, Boym departed Macau at the beginning of 1651 and arrived in Italy at the end of the following year, 1652. The Ming state document that he presented to the Roman Pope at this time is still preserved in the Papal See today (21). During his stay in Rome in 1653, Boym—with assistance from two Chinese men residing there who bore Christian names Andreas and Matthaeus—translated into Latin the stele's Chinese text using a rubbing he had brought with him (22). The Nestorian Stele translation included in Kircherus's *China Illustrata* is precisely this one.

When the Nestorian Stele was introduced to Europe, there were those who harbored doubts about its authenticity from the very beginning (23). As the stele inscription became widely known, the doubts of some scholars regarding it grew increasingly profound; among them, the French Voltaire denounced it as a complete fabrication by Jesuit missionaries, leveling severe criticism. When the nineteenth century began, prominent Orientalists such as Germany’s Neumann (1850), France’s Renan (1855), and Julien (Stanislas Julien, 1855) (24) published their doubts concerning the Nestorian Stele. While Renan and Julien did not publish any papers specifically focused on the Nestorian Stele—their opinions being appended only within works on other topics—Neumann published a paper titled "The Counterfeit Stele of Xi’an" in the *Journal of the German Oriental Society* (25).

In response to this, there were many defenders of the Nestorian Stele; however, those considered most influential among them were Pauthier of France (1857) (26) and Wylie of Britain (1854) (27). Pauthier's paper presented a compelling refutation against the doubts raised by Neumann, Renan, Julien, and other scholars. While Wylie's paper was less polemical than Pauthier's, appended to his newly undertaken and most outstanding translation of the Nestorian Stele inscription, he devoted his extensive Sinological knowledge and utilized the theories of Chinese epigraphers to guarantee that this stele could not be a forgery. Wylie introduced the research on this stele by China’s renowned epigraphers such as Gu Yanwu, Qian Daxin, and Wang Chang, and pointed out the fact that not a single Chinese scholar doubted the stele’s authenticity. Over thirty years after Wylie, Legge of Oxford University also stated in his work *The Nestorian Monument of Xi’an Prefecture* that not a single Chinese scholar in the past had explicitly declared this stele to be a forgery (28).

However, among relatively modern Chinese scholars, there were indeed those who argued that the Nestorian Stele was a forgery. Such as Qian Rundao, included in Tao Baolian’s *Record of Travels in the Xinmao Year*, was also among them:

"This stele was not recorded in Song dynasty epigraphic records...resembles a forgery by Ming-era individuals, passed off as having been excavated during the Ming period."

he stated. Furthermore, in the *First Supplement to the Imperial Dynasty’s Statecraft Compendium*, there was also included an essay titled *Investigation into the Heterodox Christian Religion’s Entry into China* by Anonymous:

"Furthermore, they had forged the Nestorian Stele...buried outside Xi’an Prefecture’s city walls and pretended to excavate it, to demonstrate the long history of their religion."

it is recorded.
Of course, such cases were rare exceptions, and the majority of Chinese scholars did not doubt that this stele was a genuine artifact from that period.
The arguments put forth by Wylie and Legge could also be considered fundamentally valid.

However, today, the authenticity of the Nestorian Stele is no longer in question.
The genuineness of this stele admits no doubt.

(1) The calligraphic style of this stele's inscription is unmistakably that of the Tang Dynasty; it cannot be a Ming-era forgery.

(2) The edict from Emperor Taizong of Tang's twelfth year of Zhenguan (638 CE) favoring Alopen—quoted verbatim in this stele—is recorded in Volume 49 of the *Tang Huiyao* without a single character discrepancy.
That Christian-affiliated individuals of the late Ming period could have forged this stele based on *Tang Huiyao* records remains utterly inconceivable when considering all circumstances.

(3) While the Nestorian Stele records that Daqin Monastery was established in Yining Ward of Chang'an, this Daqin Monastery is documented in Wei Shu's *New Records of the Two Capitals*—compiled during the Kaiyuan era of Emperor Xuanzong of Tang (713-741 CE)—as the "Persian Hu Temple" in Yining Ward of Chang'an.
Since Nestorian temples—originally called Persian Temples—were renamed Daqin Monasteries by imperial edict in the fourth year of Tianbao during Emperor Xuanzong's reign (745 CE), it follows necessarily that the Daqin Monastery in Yining Ward mentioned in the Nestorian Stele erected in the second year of Jianzhong (781 CE) corresponds precisely to the Persian Hu Temple in Yining Ward recorded in *New Records of the Two Capitals*.
This fact, I believe, stands as one piece of evidence supporting the Nestorian Stele's authenticity as a contemporary artifact.

(4) The Nestorian Stele contains an entry regarding Jilie (Gabriel?), a Nestorian monk from the inaugural year of Emperor Xuanzong’s reign (713 CE), and this Jilie is also documented in Volume 546 of the *Cefu Yuangui*.
The consistency between the two accounts further serves as evidence that this stele is not a later forgery (29).

(5) Regarding Jingjing, the monk of Daqin Monastery who composed the Nestorian Stele inscription, he is recorded in Volume 17 of the *Zhenyuan Newly Compiled Buddhist Catalog* from Emperor Dezong’s reign as Jingjing who preached the Messianic religion.
This fact must also be recognized as one piece of evidence that the Nestorian Stele is a genuine artifact of the Tang Dynasty (30).

(6) The Syriac script engraved on this stele was Estrangelo—an archaic script commonly used by Nestorian Christians of that period—while most Jesuit missionaries conducting missionary work in late Ming China had possessed absolutely no knowledge of this writing system. Indeed, even Semedo and Diaz could not read it, let alone recognize it as Syriac script. It was only after Semedo—on his return journey to Europe—stopped in India and consulted knowledgeable colleagues residing there that he finally learned it was Syriac script. The first person to translate this stele’s Syriac text had been the aforementioned Kircherus of Rome; however, when viewed from today’s perspective, his translation contained no small number of errors. According to leading modern Syriac scholars, there had likely been almost no European scholars around the seventeenth century—starting with Kircherus—who could fully translate Syriac texts in Estrangelo script (31). Therefore, the Jesuit missionaries proselytizing in China at that time could not possibly have forged the Nestorian Stele engraved with such difficult-to-decipher Syriac text.

(7) In the Syriac text of this stele, the Tang capital Chang’an was recorded as Kumdon (Kumd[a]n) or Kumdan (Kumdan). Kumdan was how Eastern Romans and Muslims referred to Chang'an throughout the Tang Dynasty; however, no sufficient explanation for why Chang'an was called thus has yet been published in academia. I remain convinced that "Kumdan" represents a phonetic corruption of the transliteration of "Jingcheng"—the common name for Chang'an meaning "capital city" (32). Be that as it may, neither missionaries proselytizing in late Ming China nor European scholars of the early seventeenth century could have known that Kumdan denoted Chang'an. Nevertheless, this stele's use of Kumdan for Chang'an should, I maintain, entirely dispel suspicions of it being a late Ming forgery.

(8) From among the manuscripts excavated in the Dunhuang region, Nestorian scriptures such as the *Hymn of the Three Majesties’ Adoration* and *Discourse on the One God*—which were translated into Chinese during the Tang Dynasty—have come to light (33). These manuscripts endorse the fact that Nestorianism flourished during the Tang Dynasty and concurrently ensure the authenticity of the Nestorian Stele.

(9) Particularly significant is how these Chinese-translated Nestorian scriptures document Alopen and Jingjing—both appearing on the Nestorian Stele—(34), and this precise alignment between scripture and stele inscription must be declared an irrefutable proof guaranteeing the stele’s authenticity.

Thus, the dark clouds of doubt surrounding the Nestorian Stele—which had persisted for over two hundred years from the mid-seventeenth century through the eighteenth and into the mid-nineteenth century—gradually dispersed, and over the past fifty to sixty years, such skeptical scholars nearly vanished.

Alongside this, the issue of protecting and preserving the Nestorian Stele gradually emerged as a pressing concern. In 1852, Professor Salisbury of the United States had already published a paper titled "On the Authenticity of the Nestorian Stele of Xi’an," in which he noted that since Christian missionaries had introduced the stele to Europe during the late Ming-early Qing transition, not a single person had personally inspected this monument in the two centuries up to that time. Consequently, not only was the stele’s current condition unknown, but even its continued existence remained uncertain. The urgent task at hand, he argued, lay in dispatching a neutral and impartial individual to Xi’an to personally investigate both the stele’s survival and authenticity. Salisbury maintained that until such measures were implemented, any definitive judgment regarding the stele’s genuineness would prove difficult to establish (35).

Professor Salisbury’s proposal was adopted by the American Oriental Society.
In October 1852, the same association passed the following resolution (36).

The so-called Nestorian Stele of Xi’an Prefecture is an exceedingly valuable artifact; however, as debates regarding its authenticity have yet to be conclusively resolved, and furthermore, because not a single European has personally inspected this stele since the latter half of the seventeenth century, our association ardently hopes that the American missionaries currently residing in China will investigate this ancient monument through methods they deem appropriate, thoroughly document its current condition, produce new rubbings of it, and thereby contribute these findings to the academic world.

This resolution was distributed to each American missionary in China, but its implementation proved rather difficult.
This was because from the late Kangxi era through the early Yongzheng era, Catholicism had been prohibited, and missionaries had been unable to enter the interior of China.
However, with the 1860 Treaty of Beijing permitting both Catholicism and Protestantism to propagate and allowing Europeans and Americans somewhat freer travel into China’s interior, two British men—Williamson and Lees—journeyed to Xi’an in 1866 and became the first to inspect the Nestorian Stele within Jinsheng Temple.
The actual conditions of that time are recorded in their *Travels in Northern China*.
In any event, through these two British men, the main intent of the American Oriental Society’s resolution from over a decade prior was finally realized.

When the Nestorian Stele was excavated in the late Ming period, it was relocated to a corner of Jinsheng Temple and enshrined within a stele pavilion, but the pavilion collapsed at some unknown time.
In the ninth year of Xianfeng (1859 CE), a man named Han Taihua, taking the opportunity of visiting the stele, erected another stele pavilion to protect this monument.
Seven years later, when Williamson and others came to view it, they reported that the stele pavilion still stood imposingly (37).
However, beginning from this era, a great Muslim uprising spanning ten years broke out across Shaanxi and Gansu, and as Jinsheng Temple in Xi’an was burned down during this time, it is thought that the stele pavilion likely met the same fate.
When the renowned German geographer Richthofen came to view the Nestorian Stele at Jinsheng Temple in 1872, not a trace of the stele pavilion remained (38).
From around 1870 onward, the Nestorian Stele lay exposed to wind and rain amidst scattered rubble—a state that deeply concerned many thoughtful Europeans and Americans.
In Britain particularly, this issue provoked utmost concern; scholars such as Balfour and Lacouperie published successive articles in *The Times* of London expressing their hope that the British Foreign Office would negotiate with the Chinese government to transfer this stele to the British Museum (39).
Among them, Stevenson—a missionary residing in China who had personally inspected the Nestorian Stele—contributed a sternly worded letter to *The Times* in September 1886 that read roughly as follows (40).

To leave the Nestorian Stele—whose name was known throughout the world—exposed amidst desolation without any protection against natural destruction and human damage in its current state had indeed to be called a great disgrace of the nineteenth century.
We sincerely hoped our authorities would exert every effort to dispatch competent agents who might persuade the Shina officials in Beijing to agree to transfer this precious ancient stele to the British Museum and thereby ensure its safe preservation.
If this plan proved difficult to implement, then through the efforts of the diplomatic corps in Beijing, we wished to persuade the Shina authorities to at least construct a stele pavilion and thereby devise means to protect this monument.
If no appropriate measures were taken then, even this precious Nestorian Stele would eventually fall into ruin.

Stimulated by this momentum, the China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society—organized in Shanghai around British residents in Shina—resolved to protect the Nestorian Stele and embarked on concrete initiatives; in February 1890, its branch president Hughes submitted a proposal to Brandt, the German minister heading the foreign diplomatic corps in Beijing, urging that through the diplomatic corps’ efforts, the Shina government be advised to protect the Nestorian Stele.
This proposal was readily approved, and Brandt conveyed the Asia Society branch’s wishes both to the Zongli Yamen and to Prince Qing and other Grand Council ministers (41).
As a result, orders were issued from the central authorities to the local authorities in Xi’an, compelling them to construct a complete stele pavilion.
It is said that one hundred taels of silver were disbursed as construction funds for the stele pavilion; however, due to characteristic embezzlement within Shina’s bureaucracy, the pavilion completed in 1891 was an exceedingly shoddy structure that was blown down by wind within about a year, leaving the Nestorian Stele once again exposed to rain.
When Professor Forke of Berlin visited Xi’an around May and June of the following year, it is reported that the stele pavilion had already vanished without a trace (42).
Thus, for the next fifteen or sixteen years until the time I went to view the Nestorian Stele, it remained in exactly the same condition.

In autumn of Meiji 40 (1907), having resolved to tour Luoyang Pass in the company of Bungakushi Uno—now Dr. Tetsujin Uno, Professor at Tokyo Imperial University—I departed Beijing on September 3 of that year, spent half a month journeying between long stations and short waypoints, entered Xi'an on the 19th of the month, and seven days later on September 26, went out to Jinsheng Temple to conduct a physical inspection of the Nestorian Stele.

Jinsheng Temple was located approximately three Chinese miles outside the western outer wall of Xi'an.
The temple had suffered damage during the Muslim uprising of the Tongzhi era and now lay in utter ruin.
However, the temple grounds remained impressively spacious, spanning two-and-a-half chō from north to south and one-and-a-half chō from east to west. With its dilapidated walls standing intermittently, they still evoked some semblance of their former appearance.
The current main hall, reconstructed after the ravages of war, retained no semblance of its former glory; yet in its rear garden—apparently where the original sanctuary had once stood—amidst scattered debris of broken bricks and tiles, there remained an exquisitely crafted stone archway erected in the twelfth year of the Wanli era of Ming (1584 CE), inscribed with the words "True Realm of Jetavana."
Before it stood three or four stone tablets from the Ming-era Chenghua and Jiajing periods, all recording the temple’s origins.
Approximately half a chō north of the stone archway, five stone steles stood erected amidst the ridges and furrows, but the second one from the east was the so-called Nestorian Stele.
The others had mostly been erected after the Qianlong era, and likewise, many of them documented the temple’s origins.
The Nestorian Stele had no stele pavilion.
It remained completely unprotected against both natural elements and human persecution.
When Europeans and Americans who revered this stele as a peerless global treasure witnessed its current state, it seemed not entirely unreasonable that they would lament its future and ultimately clamor to relocate it to their homelands for protection.

I had traveled for about a week to Xianyang, Qianzhou, Liquan, and other areas starting two days after visiting the Nestorian Stele. On the afternoon of October 4, as I was returning to Xi’an, I encountered over a dozen laborers transporting a large tortoise-shaped pedestal into the city through the western outer wall. Because we were hurrying on our return journey, we did not make any inquiries and returned directly to our lodgings. That evening, through conversation with a Japanese instructor residing in Xi’an, I learned how the Governor had become greatly alarmed upon hearing of a foreigner’s recent scheme to purchase the Nestorian Stele from Jinsheng Temple for three thousand taels and sell it to a London museum—a plan already in motion. The authorities had abruptly moved the stele to the Forest of Steles and imposed stringent vigilance, even requiring official permission for taking rubbings. Realizing that the tortoise pedestal I had witnessed—given its antiquity and size—must belong to Jinsheng Temple’s Nestorian Stele, I proceeded to the Forest of Steles on the morning of October 6 to investigate. There I found the stele indeed being installed. Satisfied that Xi’an—the monument’s home for a millennium—still maintained its bond with the Nestorian Stele, and that its relocation ensured protection by Chinese authorities, I returned to my lodgings.

I departed Xi'an on October 9 and began my return journey, but on the afternoon of October 12, near Fushui Town, I witnessed a specially made large cart in the distance. When I pressed the cart driver for details, he explained they were transporting a stone stele forged by a foreigner from Xi'an to Zhengzhou, adding that a friend of his had undertaken this transportation. Immediately, suspicion arose in my mind that this might relate to the Xi'an Nestorian Stele. If this were indeed the case, numerous questions surfaced—when had such a replica been created, and how closely did it resemble the original? However, with incessant rain over consecutive days leaving knee-deep mud, and the stele being securely wrapped in matting, inspecting it proved utterly impossible. Regretfully abandoning further inquiry, I hastened onward. In Zhengzhou, I parted ways with Mr. Uno—he heading south and I north—and returned to Beijing on October 28.

In January of the following year, Meiji 41 (1908), a letter arrived from Mr. Uno in Shanghai, which appended that according to the *Hankou Daily News*, the foreigner who had endeavored to purchase Xi'an's Nestorian Stele was a certain Fritz von Holm, referred to as a Danish journalist.
During our journey to Xi'an, on September 14, when we lodged at Dawang Temple in the official residence of Minxiang County, the temple's Taoist priest Cao Yongshen showed us two name cards.
One belonged to Japanese Army Infantry Major Hino Tsuyoshi,
namely, the author of *Ili Journal*.
One was He Lemo, a Danish journalist.
This He Lemo was undoubtedly Mr. Holm.
The term "Dàdān guó wénshì" translates to "Danish Journalist," while "Hè Lèmó" corresponds to "Holm."

Be that as it may, my journey to Xi'an became inextricably intertwined with Mr. Holm—who had gone there to either purchase or replicate the Nestorian Stele—so that on the outbound journey I chanced upon his name card; during my stay in Xi'an I witnessed firsthand the relocation to the Forest of Steles of this monument so closely linked to him, an event unparalleled since its late Ming excavation; on my return journey I came upon his replica stele being transported; and today I find myself delivering this introductory lecture for the unveiling of a model Nestorian Stele donated by that very Mr. Holm—a chain of coincidences I must indeed describe as astonishingly serendipitous.

Now, articles concerning Mr. Holm's acquisition and replication of the Nestorian Stele were subsequently published in the Shanghai Times and other outlets, attracting widespread attention both domestically and abroad. Simultaneously, among foreign residents, some began to harbor doubts regarding the authenticity of the Nestorian Stele that had been transferred to the Forest of Steles.
There was no way Mr. Holm, having deliberately journeyed from Europe and expended considerable funds and effort, would return home satisfied with merely a replica stele.
Bribing Shina officials who have an eye for gold and silver was an easy task.
Not a few people asserted that what had been moved to the Forest of Steles was the Replica and that what Mr. Holm took away was undoubtedly the original stele.

As these rumors intensified, the Shina authorities grew considerably concerned.
They ordered its seizure at Hankou Customs and dispatched officials for investigation—rumors swirled in chaotic profusion.
It appeared Chinese scholars too were growing uneasy, and Mr. Chen Yi of the Ministry of Education even went out of his way to visit my lodgings to solicit my opinion.
I also received the same inquiries from numerous Japanese residents in China.
However, I found myself unable to provide any definitive answer.
To speak truthfully, during my Xi'an journey at that time, I had not anticipated such a significant problem arising in the future.
Though I had seen with my own eyes the Nestorian Stele transferred to the Forest of Steles, I had not examined it with sufficient care to resolve such doubts.
While I had encountered the stone stele Mr. Holm removed, I never personally verified the actual object.
Though I publicly maintained that the Forest of Steles housed the original, inwardly I lacked the positive conviction needed to refute opposing theories.

In the spring of Meiji 42 (1909), I returned to Japan and assumed a position at Kyoto Imperial University. That autumn, when I visited the Maruzen branch in the company of my colleague Professor Ueda, there was a newly arrived small booklet by Mr. Holm titled *Nestorian Stele* (43). Though a fragmentary little work, it details the full account of the Nestorian Stele incident with which Mr. Holm himself was involved, making it rather difficult for me to discard. Particularly through this book, I was able to confirm that what Mr. Holm had taken out was indeed a replica stele, and thus the doubts surrounding the Nestorian Stele that had persisted for two years finally dissolved for the first time.

This Mr. Holm was Danish and had been born in Copenhagen in 1881.
While his father may have been a diplomat by relation, he himself had lived abroad from an early age and became a journalist in Shina and Japan immediately following the Boxer Rebellion.
In Japan, he was said to have worked at the Japan Daily Advertiser in Yokohama.
Having returned to Europe in 1905 and continued his journalistic career in London for some time, he went to Shina in January 1907 (Meiji 40) and formulated plans either to purchase the Nestorian Stele or create a replica of the original monument.
Thus passing through America en route to Shina, he departed Tianjin on May 2 of that year and arrived in Xi'an on the 30th of the same month.
On June 10 he first visited Jinsheng Temple, personally inspected the Nestorian Stele, and exerted efforts toward purchasing the original monument; however, judging success ultimately improbable, he subsequently commenced creating its replica.
He summoned stonemasons and contracted them to produce a replica stele matching the original's exact dimensions, material composition, and weight.
The stonemasons quarried stone of identical quality from Fuping County—ninety Chinese miles north of Xi'an—transported it to Xi'an, and labored on crafting the replica within Jinsheng Temple's precincts from July through September.
Mr. Holm proudly asserted that when completed, this replica stele achieved such exquisite workmanship that at first glance one could scarcely distinguish it from the original.

Mr. Holm was scheduled to transport this replica stele out of Xi’an on October 3. When he went to Jinsheng Temple the previous day, October 2, to make preparations, he found the temple grounds unusually bustling with activity. Upon inquiring about the commotion, he was informed that—quite unexpectedly—the Nestorian Stele was being relocated to the Forest of Steles by official decree, and that the stone monument had already been removed from the premises. The relocation process appears to have spanned three days, from October 2nd through the 4th. The transportation of the tortoise-shaped pedestal that I witnessed during my return journey from surveying Weibei occurred on this final day of removal. Thus, as foreigners, Mr. Holm and I must be recognized as both the last observers of the Nestorian Stele enshrined at Jinsheng Temple and the first witnesses of its newly transferred state in the Forest of Steles.

That same summer, Professors Chavannes of France and Alexieff of Russia had presumably visited Xi'an one or two months before I did; unfortunately, they failed to encounter the momentous event of the Nestorian Stele's relocation (44).

On October 3, Mr. Holm loaded the two-ton replica stele onto a specially made carriage and sent it off from Jinsheng Temple to Zhengzhou.
Mr. Holm himself departed Xi'an three days later on October 6 and headed to Zhengzhou in pursuit of the replica stele.
I departed Xi’an three days after Mr. Holm, on October 9, and proceeded to Zhengzhou following in the same gentleman’s wake.
The replica stele was transported from Zhengzhou to Hankou via the Jinghan Railway but was seized at Hankou Customs.
Mr. Holm himself went to Beijing and negotiated with Mr. Hart (Robert Hart), the Inspector General of Customs, to have the seizure lifted. The replica stele was then sent from Hankou to Shanghai, and from Shanghai to America. From June 1908 (Meiji 41), this replica was displayed as a deposited item at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art.
After being displayed in New York for eight full years, in 1916 (Taisho 5), a suitable buyer emerged, and it was decided that this replica stele would be sent to Pope Benedict XV (45).
Mr. Holm himself escorted this stele to Rome and completed the presentation procedures.
Thus, after 1917 (Taisho 6), this replica stele has been enshrined in the Lateran Palace museum belonging to the Roman Papal See.
The argument advocating for relocating the Nestorian Stele to the British Museum, which had been proposed approximately thirty years prior, ultimately resulted in enshrining its replica in a Roman museum.

When this replica stele was deposited at the New York museum, Mr. Holm distributed plaster models of equal size to universities and museums in various countries upon request {at cost?}. It is said that the countries which received them have now reached thirteen in number. In Europe, these include the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Greece, Turkey, and others; in Asia, they are our Kyoto Imperial University and the museum in Calcutta, India (Indian Museum). This model lacks the tortoise-shaped pedestal that serves as its base stone, but I believe everything else sufficiently evokes the original stele.

I should add in passing that apart from this model in the collection of our Imperial University, there exists another replica of the Nestorian Stele at Okunoin on Mount Kōya.
This replica was constructed on September 21, 1911 (Meiji 44), funded by Mrs. Gordon—an Irish scholar of Buddhist studies—as recorded (46).
I believe this replica stele was erected at Mount Kōya, our nation's sacred site of esoteric Buddhism, likely owing to the historical connection that Jingjing—composer of the Nestorian Stele's inscription—once assisted Prajñā三蔵, teacher of Great Master Kūkai (Kōbō Daishi), in translating esoteric scriptures.
However, it remains regrettable that this replica bears little resemblance to the original stele.

(1) Heller; Das Nestorianische Denkmal in Singanfu. pp. 438-441 (Graf Széchenyis Ostasiatische Reise. Vol. II).

(2) Cordier; Bibliotheca Sinica. Volume II, Col. 772-781. Ibid. Supplément, Col. 3562-3564.

(3) Wylie; The Nestorian Tablet of Se-gan Foo. pp. 289-300 (Journal of the American Oriental Society. V).

(4) Mosheim; Ecclesiastical History. Vol. I, p.366.

(5) Barthold; Zur Geschichte des Christentums in Mittel Asien. pp. 22 ff.

(6) Pelliot; Chrétiensd'Asie Centrale etd'Extrême Orient. p. 625 (T'oung Pao. 1914).

(7) Havret; La Stèle Chrétienne de Sin-gan fou. III partie.

(8) Semedo; The History of China. p. 157.

(9) Kanda (Kiichirō), "On a Certain Shina Scholar’s Study of Nestorianism"
(Published in the August 1924 issue of Rekishi to Chiri [History and Geography])

(10) Havret; *La Stèle Chrétienne* Part II, pp. 37, 39.

(11) Havret; Ibid. II, p.59.

(12) Havret; Ibid. II, pp. 34-37, 70-71.

(13) Moule; The Christian Monument at Hsi-an fu. p. 77 (Journal of N.C.B.R.A.S, 1910).

(14) Saeki; *The Nestorian Monument in China*. pp. 17-19.

(15) Lamy et Gueluy; Le Monument Chrétien de Sin-gan-fou. p. 100 (Mémoire de l'Académie Royale des Science etc. de Belgique. Tome Liii).

(16) Tao Baolian of the Qing Dynasty’s *Xinmao Shixing Ji* (辛卯侍行記), Volume 3, pages 4–10; *Xianning Xianzhi* (咸寧縣志), Volume 3, page 45.

(17) Pelliot; Chrétiens d'Asie Central etd'Extrême Orient. p. 625.

(18) Havret; La Stèle chrétienne. II, p. 326; III, p. 67.

(19) Havret; La Stèle Chrétienne. II, pp. 32, 325.

(20) Havret; Ibid. II, p. 31.

(21) Messrs. Mitsukuri and Tanaka, "Edict Presented from the Ming Empress Dowager to the Roman Pope" (published in the December 1892 issue of Shigaku Zasshi [Journal of Historical Studies]), and my paper "Documents Submitted from Pang Tianshou of the Ming Dynasty to the Roman Pope" (published in the March and May 1897 issues of Shigaku Zasshi; included in Volume II of this collected works).

(22) Heller; Das Nestorianische Denkmal in Singanfu. p. 15. Lamy et Gueluy; Le Monument Chrétien. p. 9.

(23) Kirchere; La Chine Illustrée. p. 1.

(24) Pauthier; De l'Authenticité de l'Inscription Nestorienne de Sin-gan-fou. pp. 7, 14-21.

(25) Neumann; Die erdichtete Inschrift von Singnan Fu. (Zeitschrift d. D. M. Gesellschaft. IV).

(26) Pauthier; De l'Authenticité de l'Inscription Nestorienne.

(27) Wylie; The Nestorian Tablet of Se-gan Foo (Journal of the American Oriental Society V).
(28) Legge; The Nestorian Monument of Hsi-an Fu. p.37.
(29) My paper “Anecdotes Concerning the Nestorian Monk Ji Lie” (published in the November 1915 issue of Geibun).
(30) Dr. Takakusu: The Nestorian Missionary Adam, Presbyter, Papas of China, Translating a Buddhist Sûtra. p. 590 (T’oung Pao 1896).
(31) Lamy et Gueluy; Le Monument Chrétien de Sin-gan-fou. p. 83.

(32) Hirth; Nachworte zur Inschrift des Tonjukuk. s. 35-36 (Radloff; Die Alttürkischen Inschriften. II).

(33) My paper “Concerning People from the Western Regions Who Traveled to and from China During the Sui and Tang Dynasties”
p. 14 (contained in *Festschrift for Dr. Naitō’s Sixtieth Birthday: Collected Essays on Sinology*)

(34) Dr. Haneda, “On the Xuting Misuojing (Sutra of Hearing the Messiah), a Nestorian Classic”
p. 3 (contained in *Festschrift for Dr. Naitō’s Sixtieth Birthday: Collected Essays on Sinology*)

(35) Salisbury; On the Genuineness of theso-called Nestorian Monument of Singan Fu. p. 410 (Journal of the American Oriental Society.III).

(36) Journal of the A.O.S. III{1853}, p. 419.

(37) Williamson; Journey to theNorthChina. Vol. I, p. 381.

(38) Richthofen; China. Bd. I, s. 553.

(39) Lacouperie; Beginnings of Writing in Central and Eastern Asia. pp. 84-85.

(40) Lacouperie; Ibid. p. 85.

(41) Journal of the China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society XXIV (1889–90), pp. 136–139

(42) Forke; Von Peking nach Chang-an und Lo-yang. p. 70 (Mittheilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen. I).

(43) Holm; The Nestorian Monument.

(44) Holm; *My Nestorian Adventure*. p. 251.

(45) Holm; Ibid. pp. 319–320.

(46) Mizuhara Takayoshi’s *Illustrated Explanation of Metal and Stone Inscriptions at Kōyasan*, Volume 2, page 173 and following.