गुप्त अभिलेख संग्रह (जे. एफ. फ्लीट - गुप्त सम्राटों एवं परवर्ती नरेशों के ऐतिहासिक पाषाण व ताम्रलेख)

successor Chandragupta II., and must have been engraved soon after the accession of
the latter. Its great value lies in the abundant information which, in the conquests
attributed to Samudragupta, it gives us as to the divisions of India, its tribes, and its
kings, about the middle of the fourth century A.D. This, however, is a subject for
detailed treatment in the historical chapters which will form the second part of this
volume.
In connection with Samudragupta, there is mentioned, in line 14, a city named
Pushpapura, which is spoken of in such a way as to indicate apparently that it was his
capital. Pushpapura, Pushpapurî, and Kusumapura, all meaning ‘the town or city
of flowers,’ were names of Pâṭaliputra, which is now represented by the modern Paṭna
in Bihâr, on the Ganges; the original city, Pâṭaliputra itself, stood on the opposite south
bank of the river, at the place where, in ancient times, the Sôn used to flow into it. The
antiquity of the name Kusumapura is vouched for by Hiuen Tsiang,¹ who speaks of the
city under both names,—K‘u-su-mo-pu-lo, or Keu-su-mo-pu-lo, which he also explains by
the Chinese Hwa-kong or Hwa-kung, ‘flower-palace,’ and Hiang-hu-kong-sh‘ing, ‘city or
royal precinct of the scented flower;’ and Po-ch‘a-li-tsu-ch‘ing, ‘the city of Pâṭaliputra.’
He tells us that Kusumapura was the more ancient name of the two. And, though I
cannot find any early authority for it apart from the present passage, there is no reason
for declining to think that the synonym Pushpapura was in use in early days, quite as
much as it was at the time when the Daśakumâracharita and other books, which give us
this form and Pushpapurî, were written. This passage, therefore, may furnish good
grounds for locating Samudragupta’s capital at Pâṭaliputra. At the same time, I
have to draw attention to the following points, as requiring consideration in determining
this question. (1) Until the time of Skandagupta, no inscriptions of this dynasty have
been found anywhere in the neighbourhood of Pâṭaliputra.² (2) Though Pâṭaliputra is
mentioned, under its own proper name, in two of the inscriptions³ of Chandragupta II.,
yet neither of these passages connects the city with him, as his capital. And (3) Hìuen
Tsiang⁴ mentions another ancient Kusumapura,—for which the synonym Pushpapura
would be equally acceptable,—far distant, and quite distinct, from Pâṭaliputra. He tells us
that the old capital of Kânyâkubja, or Kanauj, was originally called Kusumapura.
And, though he is not absolutely specific on the point, yet the way in which he describes
how the town came to be invested with the name of Kânyâkubja, seems to indicate that
he understood Kusumapura to be the ancient name of the very site which, in his time,
was called Kânyâkubja. A capital here, or anywhere in this neighbourhood, would be
far more in accordance with the localities at which all the earlier inscriptions of the
dynasty exist; and still more so with the selection of a column either at Allâhâbâd or
at Kauśâmbî, to contain the record of the conquests of Samudragupta, by whom the
power of the family was brought to maturity and was placed on an extensive footing. It
is a matter for regret that the last pâda of the verse that mentions Pushpapura, is so
hopelessly illegible; it evidently contained a reference to some river, which might have
¹ Buddh. Rec. West. World, Vol. II. p. 83 ff.
² I exclude intentionally, of course, the spurious Gayâ grant of Samudragupta, No. 60 below,
Plate xxxvii.
³ The Udayagiri cave inscription, No. 6 below, Plate ivA. l. 4; and the Gaḍhwâ inscription of
the year 88, No. 7, Plate ivB. l. 12.
⁴ Buddh. Rec. West. World, Vol. I. p. 207.