________________
No. 30.)
NALANDA SEAL OF VISHNUGUPTA.
237
lakalpa' (henceforth called MMK.), which is a literary work of the 8th 9th centuries A. D., has preserved a skeleton of the Gupta history and chronology which may prove very valuable for & study of the subject. The succession according to this work is also shown below in juxtaposition to the list of the seals. In each case the rulers previous to Kumāragupta I have been omitted, since there is practically complete unanimity on the earlier Gupta chronology. Succession according to Seals.
Succession arording to MMK. Kumāragupta (1)
Malandra Pūrugupta
S-initialled Narasimhagupta
Bala Kumāragupta (II)
Kumāra (IT)
Vishộugupta That Mahindra is same as Kumāragrupta I will be admitted on all hands. The identity of Bāla (Būlāditya) and Narasimhagupta also is beyond doubt. Kumāra(gupta II) is common to both the seals and the MMK. The name U (Ukārākhya) of the MMK., however, appears to be puzzling. But an examination of Vishnugupta's coins shows on the obverse between the king's feet the letter U, which no doubt is identical with U of the MMK, and represented probably the abbreviation of some viruda or nickname of Vishnugupta who is konwn from coins to have had another viruda, viz. Chandrāditya. As regards the S-initialled (Sakārādya) king of the MMK., it will be readily recognised that he is the well-known king Skandagupta, son of Kumāragupta I. Against this name the succession list of the seals shows Pūrugupta. As all other names on one list correspond with those on the other, the presumption is that Skandagupta should be equated with Pūrugupta. It is, however, exactly at this point that the controversy starts. Pūrugupta, misspelt as Puragupta, has been so far supposed to be a brother and collateral of Skandagupta. Some scholars think that there was partition of the Gupta empire either during or after Skandagupta's reign, Skandagupta and his descendants ruling over some provinces and the collateral branch of Purugupta over the remaining portion of the kingdom. Others hold that Pūrugupta's branch succeeded Skandagupta or his descendants on the undivided imperial throne. All these theories rest on the supposition that Pūrugupta and Skandagupta were two different entities. This misconception arose from the fact that while the scholars took care to note Skandagupta and Pūrugupta being cach called son of Kumāragupta I, they ignored that the Gupta records referred to each as tatpūdānudhyāta in relation to Kumāragupta I. That the phrase tatpadūnudhyāta bad the technical sense of immediate successor in the imperial Gupta documents is clear from its omission in the case of Chandragupta II, who is invariably called tatparigrikāta or tatpūda parigrihita in relation to his father, Samudragupta. The substitution of the usual tatpūdūnudhyāta by the improvised phrase tatparigrihita or tatpädaparigrihita is significant and was necessitated by the fact that Chandragupta II did not directly succeed his father but was preceded in the Imperial succession by his brother Rāmagupta. Skandagupta and Pūrugupta, therefore, each of whom is called the son and immediate successor of Kumāragupta I, must be taken as one and the same
1 Jayaswal's edition, vv. 645 ff. ; Imperial History of India, p. 33.
See Allan, Catalogue of Coins of the Gupta Dynasties, pl. XXIII, 9. Jayaswal identified U of the NAK. with Prokāsāditya, whose coins also show the letter U (Imperial History of India, p. 39). If this identification be accepted, Prakabiditya will become another biruda of Vishnugupta.
0.1.1., Vol. III, p. 27 (1.0). p. 50 (1. 19), p. 53 (1.4); bove, Vol. xv, p. 41 (1.4); 4. S. I., Memor No. 66, .61! 1. Si, p. 65 (1.3), p. 66 (1. 3).
