[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Literature, language and dating](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature) › [A History of Indian Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.winternitz-1927) › v2.c19.s3.t1.38 # A History of Indian Literature v2.c19.s3.t1.38 A History of Indian Literature v2.c19.s3.t1.38 - **Language:** English ### [v2.c19.s3.t1.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.winternitz-1927.v2.c19.s3.t1.38) If, as we have shown, the Dīghanikāya is composed of earlier and later portions, it cannot be the earliest work of the Canon, as \*Franke\* endeavours to prove,\[^4) and there is no justification for the attempt to construct “the doctrine of Buddha in its earliest accessible form” from the Dīghanikāya. It is only by comparing \*all\* the ancient Buddhist texts, which are scattered in the \*various\* collections, that we can attempt - [Previous: v2.c19.s3.t1.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.winternitz-1927.v2.c19.s3.t1.37) - [Next: v2.c19.s3.t1.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.winternitz-1927.v2.c19.s3.t1.39) - [Up: v2.c19.s3.t1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.winternitz-1927.v2.c19.s3.t1) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.winternitz-1927.v2.c19.s3.t1.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.winternitz-1927.v2.c19.s3.t1.38) · Pramāṇa