A History of Indian Literature v2.c19.s5.151

v2.c19.s5.151

² JA sér. 9, t. XV, 1900, p. 429, and Journal des savants, 1905, p. 539. The theory of the reliability of the chronicles is also supported by *Max Müller*, SBE, Vol. 10 (I), pp. xiii-xxv; *Rhys Davids*, Buddhist India, p. 274 f.; H. O. *Norman*, JRAS 1908, 1 ff. In his researches on the history of the Canon, *Oldenberg* (see above, p. 1, note 1) has made many references to the data of Dīp. and Mah. *Fleet* (JRAS 1909, pp. 987 and 1015) considers that the Dīpavaṁsa is based on local records of the time of Aśoka, and that the last words of Duṭṭhagāmaṇi are actually preserved in Mahāvaṁsa 32. A very low estimation of the historical reliability of the chronicles is held by V. A. *Smith* (Ind. Ant. 32, 1903, p. 365 f.) and R.O. *Franke*, JPTS 1908, p. 1. This scepticism has been refuted on excellent grounds by W. *Geiger*, (ZDMG 63, 1909, p. 550; The Mahāvaṁsa, Transl., pp. XII ff., XV ff., XX ff.). *Hultzsch* (JRAS 1913, p. 517 ff.) has succeeded in tracing synchronisms even between the later additions to the Mahāvaṁsa (for the period from the 10th to the 12th century) and the inscriptions.