On the Chronicles of Ceylon

I. Chonological Position – 23
of an earlier prose chronicle in Sinhalese prose, but as regards the
Dīpavaṁsa, it was composed or compiled on the basis of the
traditional sayings of the ancients in Pali verse. In such
circumstances the Dīpavaṁsa must have to be treated as
chronologically earlier than the Aṭṭhakathā Mahāvaṁsa or the
Sinhalese prose chronicle in the Porāṇaṭṭhakathā with the traditional
Pali verses quoted here and there in the name of the Porāṇas.
In support of the statement of the Mahāvaṁsa-Ṭīkā regarding the
earlier Aṭṭhakathā Mahāvaṁsa one may cite the evidence of the Pali
commentaries ascribed to Buddhaghosa. One may even go so far as
to premise that the general introduction to the Samantapāsādikā is
only a verbatim reproduction in Pali of such an earlier chronicle in a
Sinhalese Aṭṭhakathā. We have similar reproductions also in the
general introduction to the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī, the commentary on
the Dīgha Nikāya, and in those to the Atthasālinī and the
Kathāvatthu Aṭṭhakathā. These reproductions presuppose the
Dīpavaṁsa and Sinhalese commentaries but nowhere Mahānāma’s
great work. [12]
3. Mahāvaṁsa and Cūḷavaṁsa
The Mahāvaṁsa proper which is known as the great work of
Mahānāma is to be distinguished from its later supplements edited by
Geiger under a common title, namely, Cūḷavaṁsa. The authors of
the supplements applied the title of Mahāvaṁsa to their own
compositions. Under this very title George Tumour published his
edition and translation of the entire work. The relative
chronological positions of the chronicle and its supplements may be
stated thus: ‘The Mahāvaṁsa proper with Duṭṭhagāmaṇi as its hero