________________
JULY, 1890.]
be felt in adopting Dr. Hoernle's reading of the name as Narasimhagupta.
MISCELLANEA.
bri
In the same line, in the case of Narasimhagupta's wife, we have another name in respect of which I cannot agree with Dr. Hoernle. He gave the reading as śrimatidévyám, and took the name to be Srimatidêvi. But if, as I think, the name of Puragupta's wife was simply Vatsadêvi, then here also we must have the honorific prefix ért, and, to give the name of Srimatidêvi, the text should be ri-Srimatidévyám; compare Srimatyám in line 2 of the Dôô-Baraçârk inscription. Moreover, while the syllable after ért is certainly ma, in my opinion it is clearly followed by ha. Further, the proper position of the dé of dévyám is at the beginning of line 8; not at the end of line 7, where Dr. Hoernle placed it. And after the syllables mahd, there appear to me to have been in reality two letters, not only one, at the end of line 7; the second of them is now entirely illegible; the first is much damaged, but, comparing it with the initial of lichchhavi in line 2, I think that the consonant was 7. For these reasons, I think that this name must be taken as Mahalakshmidêvi; without, however, proposing this as quite a certainty. Failing that, it may be Mahâdêvidêvî; or possibly simply Mahadêvi, in which case, the dé lying where Dr. Hoernle placed it, unnecessary spaces were left at the end of line 7 and at the beginning of line 8.
In line 8, in the name of Narasimhagupta's son, the letters kum and rag are so distinct, that the whole name can be nothing but Kumaragupta (II.), as taken by Dr. Hoernle.
The importance of this inscription lies partly in its extending the Early Gupta genealogy by two generations; and partly in its omitting all mention of Skandagupta; for, undoubtedly, Dr. Hoernle is right in taking Puragupta to be, not another name of Skandagupta, but the name of a (younger) brother of his. Why Skandagupta is omitted, it is useless at present to attempt to explain conclusively. But in addition to the analogous instance quoted by Dr. Hoernle, I am able to give a still more pointed one from the Eastern Chalukya grants. Almost all of them commence by mentioning Pulikêéin II., and then trace the genealogy from his younger brother Vishnuvardhana I. But the Sâtârâ grant of Vishnuvardhana I., which takes the genealogy further back, passes straight to him from his father Kirtivarman I., omitting to make any reference to Pulikêsin II.; and this, in spite of the fact that Vishnuvardhana I. was then only the Yuvaraja of his elder brother. The inference is, I think, that, whether Skandagupta left a son
227
or not, there was a formal division of the Early Gupta territories in the generation of Skandagupta and Puragupta, or some dissension between them.
I notice that, in his historical remarks, Dr. Hoernle (p. 96) takes the Yasodharman and Vishnuvardhana of one of the Mandasôr records (Gupta Inscriptions, No. 35), to be one and the same person. I have no special reasons to urge against this view, except the apparently pointed contrast of janendra, applied to Yasodharman, with narádhipati, which is connected with Vishnuvardhana, and the use of punas-cha in the verse that introduces the latter. And I should not hesitate to adopt the identification, if, in line 5, we could read sa ésha, instead of sa eva, which is the actual reading. As it is, the question demands further consideration, before Dr. Hoernle's proposal can be accepted.
In a footnote on p. 103 f., Dr. Hoernle has ex
pressed his dissent from my opinion that the dates of the Maharajas of Uchchakalpa might have to be referred to the Kalachuri era; but has asked me to explain myself more clearly.
In the Parivrâjaka family, we have the Maharaja Hastin, with the dates of the years 156, 163, and 191, which are expressly referred to the Gupta era.
In the Uchchakalpa family, we have the Maharaja Barvanatha, with the dates of the years 193, 197, and 214. Neither in his grants, nor in those of his father Jayanâtha, is there anything to shew distinctly the era that is used. Nor do the dates contain details that can be tested by calculation.
And from the Bhumars pillar inscription we learn that Hastin and Barvanatha were contemporaries, in a certain Mahâ-Mâgha samvatsara.
In the Bhumarâ inscription, there is no mention of the year of any era at all. And Dr. Hoernle's misapprehension is based upon the fact that, in editing that record, at a time when I was under the impression that the Uchchakalpa dates, like those of the Parivrâjakas, could only be referred to the Gupta era, I used the words quoted by him, "the choice [for the Maha-Magha samvatsara in question] lies only between GuptaSamvat 189 and 201 " (Gupta Inscriptions, Texts and Translations, p. 111); and upon my omission to expressly cancel them when I came (id. Introduction, pp. 8 to 10, 119, 121; see also ante, Vol. XVII. pp. 331, note 1, 337, 338 f.) to consider another possibility which presented itself subsequently, but which I could not dispose of com
