[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.s6.t3.18 # A History of Indian Literature v2.c19.s6.t3.18 A History of Indian Literature v2.c19.s6.t3.18 - **Language:** English ### [v2.c19.s6.t3.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.winternitz-1927.v2.c19.s6.t3.18) \[^1): \*F. Weller\*, Zum Lalita Vistara, I, Über die Prosa des Lalita Vistara, Leipzig Diss. 1915, has made it seem probable that even the prose in the Lalita-Vistara was not originally written in Sanskrit, but in a dialect akin to the prose of the Mahāvastu, and that it was not sanskritized until later. \[^2): Thus the Vasantatilakā and the Śārdūlavikrīḍita are fairly frequent. See the list of metres in \*Lefmann's\* edition, Vol. II, p. 227 ff., and Introduction, p. xix ff. \[^3): By \*B. Nanjio\*, who regarded the Fo-pen-hing-king (68 A.D.) which has been lost long ago, as a translation of the Lalita-Vistara: but there is no proof whatsoever for such an assumption. \*Cf. Bagchi\*, l.c., I, p. 6. - [Previous: v2.c19.s6.t3.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.winternitz-1927.v2.c19.s6.t3.17) - [Next: v2.c19.s6.t3.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.winternitz-1927.v2.c19.s6.t3.19) - [Up: v2.c19.s6.t3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.winternitz-1927.v2.c19.s6.t3) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.winternitz-1927.v2.c19.s6.t3.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.winternitz-1927.v2.c19.s6.t3.18) · Pramāṇa