[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.s5.149 # A History of Indian Literature v2.c19.s5.149 A History of Indian Literature v2.c19.s5.149 - **Language:** English ### [v2.c19.s5.149](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.winternitz-1927.v2.c19.s5.149) It may probably be assumed that Mahānāma took all these materials which are missing in the Dīpavaṃsa, from the old Aṭṭhakathās, principally from the Sīhalaṭṭhakathā-Mahāvaṃsa, which was his chief source, even though he knew and used the Dīpavaṃsa as well. The fact that both epics are based on the historical sections of the old Aṭṭhakathās, is a strong argument in favour of our crediting them with a certain degree of reliability as historical sources. It is true, neither the Dīpavaṃsa nor the Mahāvaṃsa can be said to be a real work of history. Suffice it to point out¹ that neither of the two works even so much as mentions the name of Alexander the Great, that they have nothing but miracles to record of the great Aśoka, and that, in their narrative, this mighty conqueror is far more of a spiritual than a temporal hero. Even Gāmaṇi the Wicked, whose popular cognomen shows clearly enough that he was essentially the very opposite of a pious model of virtue, is glorified in the Mahāvaṃsa above all as a religious hero! The purpose of both epics is primarily to serve for edification, and the Mahāvaṃsa is at the same time intended to be a Kāvya. Nevertheless, we should be doing these works an injustice if, as some critics have done, with expressions of indignation (which to me appear almost ridiculous), we label their authors as deliberate forgers and liars. Their authors certainly were nothing of that kind. They relate things which \*they\* looked upon as veracious history, though \*we\*, it is true, are compelled to regard much of it as myth, legend and fiction. Now, as they did not intentionally give false reports, we may believe much of what they tell us about historical times, and periods not too far removed from their own life-time. For instance, they were the first to give us information about Candragupta, the grandfather of Aśoka; and though this information does not tally exactly with the data of the Greeks, it is nevertheless in sufficient agreement with them to have made it possible by their aid to determine the year of Buddha's death, which means that we have been able to ascertain the most important date in the history of Indian literature. Sylvain \*Lévi\*,² too, by comparing the Chinese annals with the Singhalese chronicles, has found that beginning at least from the 4th century A.D., the latter are, as historical sources, "solide, sinon impeccable." - [Previous: v2.c19.s5.148](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.winternitz-1927.v2.c19.s5.148) - [Next: v2.c19.s5.150](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.winternitz-1927.v2.c19.s5.150) - [Up: v2.c19.s5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.winternitz-1927.v2.c19.s5) ## Cites (2) - [Dīpavaṃsa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada_postcanon.vamsa.dipavamsa) — Pāli - [Mahāvaṃsa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada_postcanon.vamsa.mahavamsa) — Pāli --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.winternitz-1927.v2.c19.s5.149](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.winternitz-1927.v2.c19.s5.149) · Pramāṇa