________________
JONE, 1913.]
EPIGRAPHIO NOTES AND QUESTIONS
161
yuvardja Srt-Divakarasena, is spoken of as daughter of Chandragupta II, of the imperial Gupta dynasty. The same Prabhavati (-gupta) is mentioned in at least two published Vâkâțaka grants as daughter of Devagupta. And, as Prof. Pathak's grant, which was thoroughly examined by me, is an unquestionably genuine record, the conclusion is irresistible that Devagupta is another name of Chandragupta II. But if there is still any scepticism on this point, it is, I believe, set at rest by the Sinchi inscription of Chandragupta II, datod G. E.93. The following words which occur in it are important: mahardjadhirdja-sri-Chan lraguptsya Devardja iti priya-nam .............. ... tasya sarda-guna-sampaltaye, etc. The lacqnae here are rather unfortunate, but if we make an attempt at grasping the true meaning of the passage in the light of what precedes and follows, I doubt not that it is intended to tell us that Devaraja was another name of Chandragupta II. Prinsep translated this passage so as to make Devaraja another name of this Gupta king. This may be correct,” says Dr. Fleet. But he prefers to supply the lacunae by reading Devarája its foriya-nam-[dmdtyo-bhavat]y-[c]tasya, and take Devarâja as the name of his minister. Priya-nama Dr. Fleet correctly renders by " of familiar name," but this phrase loses its sense if Devaraja is taken to be a name not of Chandragupta but of his minister. What is the force of saying that the minister's familiar name is Devaraja, when his other and generally known name is not given? On i he other hand, if it is taken to refer to Chandragupta, the fall significance of the passage is brought
ut. For the name Chandragupta is, as a matter of fact, first mentioned, and it is immediately followed by Devaraja. This first name is more widely known, but the second is more familiar, And there is also very great propriety in Âmrakarddava, the donor, giving this second name of the Gupta sovereign. For Amrakârddays was not a Chief, but an officer of Chandragupta, as rightly said by Dr. Fleet. And it is but natural that he should mention over and above the usual and common, alse the favourite, name of the sovereign by which he was familiarly known in his palace there Âmrakârddava must have more often come in contact with him than elsewhere. Again, Amrakârddava is said to be anujivi-satpurusha-tadbhava-vrittin jagati prakhy&payan. This epithet becomes appropriate only if Devarája is taken to refer to Chandragupta. For part of his gift is intended to produce perfection of all virtues in Devaraja. If this Devarâja is no other but s minister, the expression anujivi-satpurusha-sadbhava-vșitti has no meaning. This epithet would, tuerefore, naturally lead us to suppose that Amrakarddava made the grant for the benefit, not of the minister, but of the sovereign. There can thus be no doubt that the Sáncbi inscription gives Devaraja as another name of Chandragupta II only. And this corroborates the Vâkâţaka plates of Prof. Pathak.
XVIII.-Manandasor inscription of Naravarman, A new inscription has recently been brought to light at Mandsaur or Mandasor, the chief town of the district of the same name in Scindia's Dominions of the Western Malwa Division of Central India. It is now lying in the possession of Lala Dayashankar, a local pleader, but was originally found near the Fort gate not far from the village of Todi.
The stone on which the inscription is engraved appeare purposely to have been neatly cut out after line 9 for being used in some building. The object of the record is thus not clear, as it is lost with the missing portion of the inscription stone; bat it seems to be something connected with the god Yasudeva. This benefaction, whatever it was, was made by an individual paned Satya, who was a son of Vargnavriddhi and grandson of Jaya. The record refers itself to the reign of Naravarman, son of Singhavarman and grandson of Jayavarman, and is dated the 5th of the bright half of Asvoja (Asvins) of the Malava (or Vikrama) year 461 = A. D. 404. It is thus evident that this Naravarman is identical with the prince of that name who is mentioned as father of Vibyavarman by the Gaigdhâr inscription of V. E. 480. And we know from another Mandasor inscription that
1 Fleet's Gupta Inscrs., p. 74 ff.
