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

have been in the immediate vicinity of each other, in different divisions of one and the
same ancient capital. And, though the inscriptions give no specific information on this
point, from the fact that the order of Aṁśuvarman, recorded in inscription E., is issued to
the officials of the western province, and from the way in which, in inscription K., Mâna-
dêva is described as marching to the east and reducing to obedience the rebellious Sâman-
tas there, and then returning to the west, it seems pretty clear that the Lichchhavikula or
Sûryavaṁśi family had the government of the territory to the east of the capital; and the
Ṭhâkurî family, of the territory to the west of it.
Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji treated Aṁśuvarman as if he was at first the feudatory
of Śivadêva I. There is, however, nothing in the inscriptions to support this. The in-
scriptions of Śivadêva I., it is true, record acts that were done by him "on the advice," or
"at the request," of Aṁśuvarman; but this expression, though often used in respect of
feudatories and officials, does not of necessity imply any state of subordination. And,
whereas Śivadêva I. uses in respect of himself only the feudatory title of Mahârâja, in his
own inscriptions he allots to Aṁśuvarman the equal title of Mahâsâmanta; not simply
Sâmanta, as represented almost throughout by Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji. Śivadêva I. and
Aṁśuvarman were only co-ordinate feudatories of a paramount sovereign, viz. Harshavar-
dhana of Kanauj. During the time when Aṁśuvarman was a Mahârâjâdhirâja
or paramount sovereign, as recorded in inscription G., the Lichchhavis must have been
feudatory to him. This was after his inscription C. of A.D. 639. His other two inscrip-
tions E. and F., which give him no titles except that of śrî, "the illustrious, or the
glorious," perhaps belong to a transitional period, when he hesitated about adopting the
paramount title, and yet was unwilling to use a feudatory title any longer. He probably
assumed the paramount rank and title, on the death of Harshavardhana; when, as Ma-
twan-lin tells us,¹ the kingdom of Kanauj fell into a state of anarchy, and the minister Na-
fo-ti-a-la-na-shun usurped the supreme power. And Aṁśuvarman is probably the king of
Nêpâl, who came with seven thousand horsemen to help the Chinese general Wang-hiwen-
tse who defeated the usurper. In the time of Dhruvadêva and Jishṇugupta, it is
possible that the Ṭhâkurî family may to a certain excent have acknowledged the Lich-
chhavis as superior to them. But Śivadêva II. again had the paramount title and rank;
and the Lichchhavis were then, of course, again the feudatories of the Ṭhâkurî family.
Finally, the fact that the Lichchhavi genealogy is given in the Ṭhâkurî inscription R.,
coupled with the use by Jayadêva II. in this inscription of no title but that of Râja (line
14), with the epithet śrî, 'the illustrious,' may perhaps indicate that at this latter time the
Ṭhâkurîs again acknowledged a certain amount of superiority on the part of the Lich-
chhavis. Or it may be nothing more than another expression of the mutual courtesy of
the two families, already exhibited in the inscriptions of Śivadêva I. and Jishṇugupta.

¹ Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 20.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; APPENDIX IV. 191
In the Lichchhavi family, the earliest name for which we have as yet a definite
date, is that of Śivadêva I., A.D. 635. And either Śivavṛiddhavarman, No. 14 in the
Vaṁśâvali list of the Sûryavaṁśi family, or Śivavavarman, No. 16 in the same, seems to be
intended for him. The next name is that of Dhruvadêva, A.D. 653, who is not given or
represented in the Vaṁśâvali. The connection between Śivadêva I. and Dhruvadêva, is
not as yet explained. But they probably belonged both to one branch of the family;
though, from their not being mentioned in inscription R., certainly not to the same branch
with Vasantadêva and his ancestors. Their contemporaries of the Thâkurî family were re-
spectively Aṁśuvarman and Jishṇugupta. They were followed by another branch of the same
family, introduced about A.D. 630 (not A.D. 260, as proposed by Dr. Bhagwanlal
Indraji) by Vṛishadêva, who was the contemporary of Śivadêva I.; and represented, as far
as definite dates go, by Mânadêva in A.D. 705 and 732-33 (not A.D. 329 and 356), and by
Vasantasêna or Vasantadêva in A.D. 754 (not A.D. 378). The six names from Vṛishadêva
to Vasantasêna, are given correctly in the Vaṁśâvali, as Nos. 18 to 23 of the Sûryavaṁśi
family. If inscription R. is to be accepted throughout, this branch of the family was founded
by Jayadêva I. He is doubtless the person who is intended by Jayavarman, No. 3 in the Vaṁ-
śâvali list of the Sûryavaṁśi family. And, calculating back fifteen generations, at the average
rate of twenty-five years, from Mânadêva, whose generation is represented by his recorded
dates, we have for Jayadêva I. the initial date of about A.D. 330 (not A.D. 1). But, if
Vṛishadêva was a direct lineal descendant of Jayadêva I., it is rather peculiar that the com-
poser of inscription R., writing only five generations after him, was unable to give the names
of the persons, only eleven in number, who intervened before him and after Jayadêva I. It
would seem, therefore, that, though the number of generations may be accepted, there was
at this point a break in the direct succession.
In the Thâkurî family, the earliest name is that of Aṁśuvarman, with the extreme
dates of A.D. 635 and 649 or 650; and the next is that of Jishṇugupta, A.D. 653. Aṁśu-
varman is mentioned in the Vaṁśâvali, under exactly the same name, as the founder of the
Thâkurî family; but Jishṇugupta's name is not given or represented. The connection between
them is not as yet explained. They were followed by Udayadêva (about A.D. 675, not
A.D. 400) and his descendants, who, from there being no mention of Aṁśuvarman and
Jishṇugupta in inscription R., plainly belonged to another branch of the family. Udayadêva
was contemporaneous with Dharmadêva of the Lichchhavi family; he is not mentioned in
the Vaṁśâvali, being certainly not the Udayadêvavarman, No. 24 in the Vaṁśâvali list of
the Sûryavaṁśi family. His son, Narêndradêva, is possibly the person intended by Narên-
dradêva, No. 7 in the Vaṁśâvali list of the Thâkurî family. His son, Śivadêva II., A.D.
725 and 748 (?), is not mentioned in the Vaṁśâvali. His son, Jayadêva II., A.D. 750 (?)
and 758, is possibly the person intended by Jayadêva, No. 11 in the Vaṁśâvali list of the
Thâkurî family.

The provided image appears to be completely blank/white with no visible text or inscriptions to transcribe. Please provide an image containing the text or inscription you would like transcribed.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; APPENDIX V. 193
APPENDIX V.
System of Transliteration.
The system of transliteration followed in this volume, except in respect of modern
Hindu personal names, in which absolute purism is undesirable, and in respect of a few
Anglicised corruptions of names of places, sanctioned by long usage, is this:—

194 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
into the next line; intermediate divisions, rendered unavoidable here and there by printing
necessities have been made only where absolutely necessary for neatness in the arrange-
ment of the Texts.
A double hyphen is used to separate words in a sentence, which in the original are
written as one word, being joined together by the euphonic rules of saṁdhi. Where this
double hyphen is used, it is to be understood that a final consonant, and the following initial
vowel or consonant-and-vowel, are in the original expressed by one complex sign. Where it
is not used, it is to be understood of the orthography of the original, that, according to the
stage of the alphabet, the final consonant either has the modified broken form, which, in
the oldest stages of the alphabet, was used to indicate a consonant with no vowel attached
to it, or has the distinct sign of the virāma attached to it; and that the following initial
vowel or consonant has its full initial form. In the transcription of ordinary texts, the
double hyphen is probably unnecessary; except where there is the saṁdhi of final and
initial vowels. But, in the transcription of epigraphical records, the use of this sign is
unavoidable, for the purpose of indicating exactly the palæographical standard of the ori-
ginal texts.
The avagraha, or sign which indicates the elision of an initial a, is but rarely to be
met with in inscriptions, and does not occur at all in the present series. Where it does
occur, I find it most convenient to represent it by its own Dêvanâgarî sign.
So also, practice has shewn that it is more convenient to use the ordinary Dêvanâgarî
marks of punctuation; than to substitute the English signs for them.
Ordinary brackets are used for corrections and doubtful points; and square
brackets, for letters which are damaged and partially illegible in the original, or which,
being wholly illegible, can be supplied with certainty. An asterisk attached to letters or
marks of punctuation in square brackets, indicates that those letters or marks of punctuation
were omitted altogether in the original. As a rule, it is more convenient to use the brackets,
than to have recourse to footnotes; as the points to which attention is to be drawn, attract
notice far more readily. But notes are given instead, when there would be so many
brackets, close together, as to encumber the text and render it inconvenient to read. When
any letters in the original are wholly illegible and cannot be supplied, they are represented,
in metrical passages, by the sign for a long or a short syllable, as the case may be; and,
in prose passages, by points, at the rate, usually, of two for each akshara or syllable.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS.
TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS.
No. 1; PLATE I.
ALLAHABAD POSTHUMOUS STONE PILLAR INSCRIPTION
OF SAMUDRAGUPTA.
THIS inscription appears to have been first brought to the notice of the public in 1834,
when, in the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society, Vol. III. p. 118 ff., Captain
A. Troyer published his reading of the text and a translation of it, accompanied by a lithograph
(id. Plate vi.), which was reduced by Mr. James Prinsep from a copy commenced by a
brother of Lieutenant T. S. Burt, of the Engineers, finished by a Munshî, and revised
by Lieutenant Burt himself.—In the same volume, p. 257 ff., the Revd. Dr. W. H. Mill,
working from the same lithograph, published a revised version of the text and transla-
tion; followed, at p. 339 ff., by a supplementary paper containing the first genealogical tree
of the dynasty. His version, however, though it was an improvement on that of Captain
Troyer, still fell very far short of exhibiting the original completely or accurately;
especially in his failing, like Captain Troyer, to recognise that the inscription is a posthu-
mous one; in his misreading lines 11 and 21, in such a way as to introduce into the trans-
lation and genealogical tree, without any foundation whatever in the original, the indepen-
dent princess Saṁhârikâ, with a daughter, name unknown, who was the wife of Samudra-
gupta, other mothers-in-law of the same king, and a royal issue expected at the date
of the inscription; and in his treatment of line 30, where, instead of âchakshâṇa iva bhuvo
bâhur=ayam=uchchhritaḥ stambhaḥ, "this lofty column (is) as it were an arm of the earth,
proclaiming (the fame of Samudragupta)," he read rôma-charmaṇaḥ ravi-bhuvô bâhur=
ayam=uchchhritaḥ stambhaḥ, and translated "of this child of the Sun, though clothed
in hairy flesh, this lofty pillar is the arm," which led him to refer Samudragupta and his
dynasty to the Solar Race, a mistake that sometimes seems to have been not even yet
completely eradicated.—In 1837, in the same Journal, Vol. VI. p. 969 ff., Mr. James Prinsep
gave a fresh and much improved lithograph of the inscription and its alphabet (id. Plate lv.),
reduced from impressions on cloth and paper made by Captain Edward Smith, of the
Engineers; and, with it, his own version of the text and translation.¹ His rendering of
the inscription still failed to represent the original with any real approach to accuracy and
completeness. But it was a very great improvement on the two versions that had pre-
ceded it; especially in avoiding the leading mistakes of Dr. Mill, pointed out above.
And it has remained the standard version up to the present time; except that in 1872
¹ The translation is reprinted in Mr. Thomas' edition of Prinsep's Essays on Indian Antiquities,
Vol. I. p. 233 ff.
B₁

2 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
in the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. IX. p. cxcvi. ff.,
Dr. Bhau Daji notified, from a copy on cloth made by Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji, some
corrections in the historical part, in the names of the kings and countries conquered by
Samudragupta.¹
The round monolith sandstone column, thirty-five feet in height, on which this inscrip-
tion is, dates from the third century B.C., as is shewn by the famous edicts of Aśôka on it. It
now stands in a conspicuous position inside the Fort at Allahâbâd (properly Ilâhâbâd), the
seat of Government of the North-West Provinces. It is doubtful, however, whether the
column was originally erected at this place, or whether, as has been suggested by General
Cunningham,² it was first set up at the ancient Kauśâmbî, now represented by the village
of Kôsam³ on the left bank of the Jamnâ, about twenty-eight miles west by south from
Allahâbâd; and, being still at that place when the present inscription was engraved,
was afterwards moved from there to Allahâbâd by one of the early Musalmân kings
of Dehli, just as the two Aśôka columns now at Dehli were brought there from original
positions at Mêraṭh and in the Siwâlik hills. The points in favour of the latter supposi-
tion are (1) that the column contains a short Aśôka edict addressed to the rulers of
Kauśâmbî;⁴ and (2) that the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsiang makes no mention of this
column in his account of Po-lo-ye-kia, i.e. Prayâga or Allahâbâd.⁵
The writing, which covers a space of about 6′ 8″ broad by 5′ 4″ high, commences on
the north of the column, towards the north-east, and in the longest part, line 30, runs all
round the column, except for a space of about 1′ 9.″ The bottom line is about 6′ 0″ above
the point where the column starts from its present pedestal. There is a large crack in the
column, from above the first word of the first line, and extending down to the beginning
of the fourteenth. And the upper part of the inscription has suffered very much, partly
from some of the mediæval inscriptions, which are so abundant on the column, being
engraved on and between the original lines here, and partly from the peeling off of the
surface of the stone in several places. But nothing of a historical nature appears to have
been lost; except, perhaps, after the mention of Nâgasêna in line 13, and in connection
with the mention of Pushpapura in line 14. A few letters, again, have been damaged or
destroyed by the peeling off of the stone near the beginning of line 23, and in the centre
of lines 23, 24, 31, and 32; but, except in line 32, the letters can be supplied without
any doubt. The really important part of the inscription, the historical and genealogical
passages commencing with line 19 and ending in line 30, is fortunately in a state of
¹ This notice was published in 1872; but it was read before the Society two years earlier, on
the 11th August 1870. It records that Dr. Bhau Daji submitted to the Society a revised facsimile,
text, and translation, of the inscription; but they do not appear to have been ever published, or to be
now forthcoming. His suggestions were perhaps more correct in his own notes, than in the form in
which they stand printed in the Journal.
² Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. I. p. 39.
³ The ‘Kosam and Kosim Kheraj’ of maps; about eight miles to the south of Karârî, the chief
town of the Karârî Parganâ in the Manjhanpur or Mânjhandpur Tahsîl or Sub-Division of the Allah-
âbâd District. . Indian Atlas, Sheet No. 88. Lat. 25° 20′ N.; Long. 81° 27′ E.
⁴ Corp. Inscr. Indic. Vol. I. pp. 39, 116, 141, and Pl. xxii.; see also after the end of line 10 of
the present inscription in the Plate now published.
⁵ Beal's Buddhist Records of the Western World, Vol. I. p. 230 ff.; Stanislas Julien's Hiouen
Thsang, Vol. II. p. 276 ff.—At the same time, it must be noted that Hiuen Tsiang also makes no
mention of any such column in his immediately following account of Kiau-shang-mi or Kauśâmbî.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; No. 1, PLATE I. 3

excellent preservation, and is decipherable without the slightest doubt from beginning to
end.—The size of the letters (by which I mean, here and throughout, the height of such
letters as cha, da, pa, ma, ba, va, &c., which are formed entirely within the limits of, so
to speak, the lines of writing, without any projections above or below) varies from ⁷/₁₆" to
¼". As regards the palæography of this and the other inscriptions in the volume, this
division of the subject is so extensive as to require a separate treatise to itself; and I can-
not here do more than touch in a general way on such special points as call for particular
notice. The characters of the present inscription belong to what it has been customary to
call the Gupta Alphabet. This, however, like all other similar dynastic appellations, is an
unsatisfactory and misleading term. In the first place, these characters were not confined
to the inscriptions of the Early Gupta dynasty; for they were used, with slight modifica-
tions, but not such as to affect their essential nature, on the coins of the later Indo-
Scythian kings of the Pañjâb. Even in respect of a character of such leading importance
as the letter m,—though some of these coins exhibit what is called the Indo-Scythic
form,¹ in distinction from the m of the northern Gupta inscriptions, yet, on one coin which I
had the advantage of examining in General Cunningham's collection, and which has on it
the name of Samudra,² the m that is used is the so-called Gupta m, somewhat later
than the m of the present inscription, but of exactly the same shape with the m of
mahârâja in line 8 (to choose a clear example) of the Mathurâ inscription of Chandra-
gupta II., No. 4 below, Plate iiiA. And in the second place, the inscriptions of the Early
Guptas themselves were by no means written exclusively in this alphabet. To say nothing
of the frequent use of the Indo-Scythic m on Samudragupta's coins,—illustrated, for

¹ Setting aside the few exceptional instances that we have of irregular usage, confined, I think,
entirely to coins, this letter is in itself sufficient to shew, for the whole period covered by the
inscriptions in this volume, whether the characters of a particular record belong to the northern or to the
southern class of alphabets. The m of the Indo-Scythic inscriptions, a good representation of which
may be seen in the word mahârâjasya at the beginning of the Mathurâ inscription of Huvishka of the
year 39 (Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. III. Pl. xiv. No. 1), is simply a stiff angular development of the m
of the Aśôka period. This particular form was not confined, however, to the Indo-Scythian records.
We have it, in all its angularity, in the word svâmi in the Sâñchi pillar inscription, No. 73 below, Plate
xliiA.; and, with very little modification, in the early inscriptions from Nâsik and that neighbourhood
published in the Archæol. Surv. West. Ind. Vol. IV. Plates xliv. ff. And in the slightly modified form,
with simply the angles rounded off, which it must have had in the earliest stages of development of the
southern alphabets, we have it throughout the Sâñchi inscription of Chandragupta II., No. 5 below,
Plate iiiB., e.g. in mahâvihârê, line 1; the Gaṅgdhâr inscription of Viśvavarman, No. 17 below, Plate x.,
e.g. in appratimêna, line 4; and the Mandasôr inscription of Kumâragupta and Bandhuvarman, No. 18
below, Plate xi., e.g. in bhavanam=idam=udâraṁ, line 23. While, in a more modified form, which
must have been of later development, though the instances in this volume happen to be of earlier date,
we have it throughout the Êraṇ inscription of Samudragupta, No. 2 below, Plate ii.A, e.g. in samara,
line 21; and throughout the Udayagiri cave inscription of Chandragupta II. of the year 82, No. 3 below,
Plate iiB., e.g. in mahârâja, at the beginning of line 2.—The m of the inscription now under notice
must also be simply a development of the Aśôka m, arrived at by forming the left part of the letter in
a different way, viz. by one unbroken movement, leading gradually to its being separated entirely from
the right part, which then eventually assumed a straight form, instead of curved. And, though the
instances in this volume happen to be of later date, undoubtedly the form that we have in, for
instance, mahârâja, in line 8 of the Mathurâ inscription of Chandragupta II., No. 4 below, Plate iiiA.,
must have preceded the form used in the inscription now under notice.
² The three components of the name are written one above the other, inside the spear and under
the left arm of the king, on the obverse; and they are practically identical with the components of the
same name on the coin of Samudragupta given by Mr. V. A. Smith in Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. LIII.
Part I. Pl. ii. No. 6.

B 2.

4 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM VOL. III
instance, by the coins given by Mr. V. A. Smith in the Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. LIII.
Part I. Plate ii. Nos. 3, 7, 9, 10, and 11,—we meet with at least two perfectly distinct
alphabets in their inscriptions, in addition to the one now under notice. The Êraṇ inscrip-
tion of Samudragupta, No. 2 below, Plate iiA., and the Udayagiri cave inscription of
Chandragupta II. of the year 82, No. 3 below, Plate iiB., are in a 'box-headed' and 'nail-
headed' variety of the Central India alphabet, which has hitherto been called the Nerbudda
Alphabet and the Vâkâṭaka Alphabet, and which, in addition to the very distinctive form of
m, has all the leading characteristics of the southern alphabets. The Sâñchi inscription
of Chandragupta II., again, No. 5 below, Plate iiiB., is distinctly in the characters of the
southern alphabets. And the Junâgaḍh rock inscription of Skandagupta is in a somewhat
later modification of the Saurâshṭra or Kâṭhiâwâḍ alphabet, exhibited with all its leading
characteristics in the inscription of Rudradâman, on the same rock, of which we have a
lithograph in the Archæol. Surv. West. Ind. Vol. II. p. 128, Plate xiv. It is perfectly plain
that the alphabets varied, not according to dynasties, but according to localities; and, in
establishing any system of comparative palæography, we must select territorial, not dynas-
tic, names. I would propose calling the alphabet of the inscription now under notice, the
general North India Alphabet of the fourth century A.D. The characters include two letters
which, after the Pâli period, lay for a long time in disuse in the southern alphabets, and
were not revived for a considerable time after the present period; viz. the lingual ḍ, as distinct
from the dental d, exhibited in krîḍatâ, line 14, ḍavâka, line 22, and vrîḍita, line 27;
and the lingual ḍh, exhibited in virûḍha, line 18. On the other hand, in the ḷ which
occurs in vyâluḷita, line 8, kaurâḷaka for kairaḷaka, line 19, saimhaḷaka, line 23, and laḷita,
lines 27 and 30, they include a letter which properly belongs exclusively to the southern
alphabets and languages; and its occurrence here seems to furnish an unconscious piece of
evidence to the effect that some, at least, of the conquests attributed to Samudragupta in the
south of India, were actual facts; in the other inscriptions in this volume, this letter occurs
only in the word aḷi, 'a bee,' in line 1 of the Tuśâm rock inscription, No. 67 below, Plate
xlA. In śôbhâ, line 18, vishṇugôpa, line 19, and gô-śata, line 25, the vowel ô is formed
in rather a peculiar way, which, so far as the right-hand stroke is concerned, is followed also in
the vowel â as attached to the same consonants, e.g. in śâsana, lines 23 and 24, and
gâṅgam, line 31. In respect of r in combination with a following y, we have to notice that,
as in the case of other consonants, the y is doubled, and the r is written above the line, e.g.
in vîryya, line 13; whereas, in a somewhat later development of this alphabet in Central
India, it became the custom, as in the case of y in conjunction with other letters, to write
the r on the line, with a single y attached below it, e.g. in maryâdayâ, line 6-7, and kuryat,
line 12, of the Majhgawâm plates of the Mahârâja Hastin, No. 23 below, Plate xiv. The
characters also include, in the numbering of the verses, forms of the numerical symbols
for 3, 4, and 8; the intervening symbols are destroyed.—The language is Sanskrit; and
the inscription is in verse as far as the end of line 16, and the rest in prose.—In respect of
orthography, the only points that call for notice are (1) the doubling of k, in conjunction
with a following r, e.g. in parâkkrama, line 17, kkriyâ, lines 27 and 28, and vikkrama, line
30; (2) the doubling of dh (by d, as required by the rules), in conjunction with a following
y and v, in addhyêya, line 16, and sâddhv-asâddhu, line 25; and (3) the use of the south-
ern ḷ, in the instances pointed out a few lines above.
The inscription is non-sectarian, being devoted entirely to a recital of the glory,
conquests, and descent, of the Early Gupta king Samudragupta. It is not dated;
but, as it describes Samudragupta as deceased, it belongs to the time of his son and

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.

6 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
made the point quite clear. As it is, we must look for the clue in the identification of the
Kôta family, tribe, or dynasty, which is mentioned in the same verse But, for this
name, I have not as yet succeeded in obtaining any other reference.
TEXT.¹
1 [Yah²] kulyaiḥ svai . . . . . . . . âtasa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 ya(?)sya(?) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [॥*] [1]
3 Pu(?)ṁv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
tra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 sphâ(?)ra-dva(?) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kshaḥ sphuṭ-
ôddhva[rṁ]sita . . . . . . . . . . pravitata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [॥*] [2]
5 Yasya³ prajñ-ânushaṅg-ôchita-sukha-manasaḥ śâstra-tattv-ârttha-bharttuḥ [— —]
stabdh-ô[‿ ‿ ‿ ‿]ni[‿ ‿ ‿ ‿ —]n-ôchchhri[— — ‿ — —]
6 [sa]t-kâvya-śrî-virôdhân=budha-guṇita-guṇ-âjñ-âhatân=êva kṛitvâ v[i]dval-lôkê
vi[— —]sphuṭa-bahu-kavitâ-kîrtti-râjyaṁ bhunakti [॥*] 3
7 [Â]ryyô⁴ h-îty=upaguhya bhâva-piśunair-utkarṇṇitai rômabhiḥ sabhyêsh=
ûchchhavasitêshu tulyakulaja-mlân-ânan-ôdvîkshi[ta]ḥ
8 sn[ê]ha-vyâluḷitêna bâshpa-guruṇâ tattv-êkshiṇâ chakshushâ yaḥ pitr=
âbhihitô ni[r]îksh[y]a nikhilâṁ pâhy=êva]m=[u]rv[v]îm-iti [॥*] 4
9 [Dṛi]shṭvâ⁵ karmmâṇy=anêkâny=amanuja-sadṛiśâny=adbhut-ôdbhinna-harshâ
bh[â*]vair=âsvâdaya[— ‿ ‿ ‿ ‿ ‿ ‿ — — ‿ — — ‿ ‿] [kê]chit
10 vîryy-ôttaptâś=cha kêchich=chharaṇam=upagatâ yasya vṛittê praṇâmê=
py=art[t]ê(?)[— ‿ ‿ ‿ — — ‿ ‿ ‿ ‿ ‿ ‿ ‿ — — ‿] [॥*] [5]
11 Saṁgrâmêshu⁶ sva-bhuja-vijitâ nityam=uchch-âpakârâḥ śvaḥ-śvô mâna-
pra[‿ ‿ ‿ ‿ — — ‿ — ‿ ‿ ‿ — —]
12 tôsh-ôttuṅgaiḥ sphuṭa-bahu-rasa-snêha-phullair=mmanôbhiḥ paśchâttâpaṁ
va[‿ ‿ ‿ ‿ ‿ — —]ma[ṁ(?)] sy[â]d=vasa(?)nta[m(?)] [॥*] [6]
13 Udvêl’-ôdita-bâhu-vîryya-rabhasâd=êkêna yêna kshaṇâd=unmûly=Âchyuta-
Nâgasêna-g[‿ ‿ — — — — ‿ ‿ —]
14 daṇḍair=grâhayat=aiva Kôta-kula-jaṁ Pushp-âhvayê krîḍatâ sûryyê
nê[‿ ‿ ‿ — ‿ —]taṭa[‿ — — — ‿ ‿ ‿ ‿ —] [॥*] [7]
15 Dharmma⁷-prâchîra-bandhaḥ śaśi-kara-śuchayaḥ kîrttayaḥ sa-pratânâ vaidu-
shyaṁ tattva-bhêdi praśama[‿ ‿ ‿]uku[—]y k[‿]mu(?)t[—‿]t-ârttham(?)
16 addhyêyaḥ sûkta-mârggaḥ kavi-mati-vibhav-ôtsâraṇaṁ ch=âpi kâvyaṁ kô nu
syâd=yô=sya na syâd=guṇa-mat:-v[i]dushâṁ dhyâna-pâtram ya êkaḥ [॥*] 8
17 Tasya vividha-samara-śat-âvataraṇa-dakshasya sva-bhuja-bala-parâkkram-aika-
bandhôḥ parakkrâm-âṅkasya paraśu-śara-śaṅku-śakti-prâs-âsi-tômara-
¹ From the original column.
² The first four lines, containing the first two verses, are almost entirely destroyed; and the few
letters that remain of them do not suffice to shew what the metres were.
³ Metre, Sragdharâ. ⁴ Metre, Śârdûlavikrîḍita.
⁵ Metre, Sragdharâ. ⁶ Metre, Mandâkrântâ.
⁷ Metre, Śârdûlavikrîḍita. ⁸ Metre, Sragdharâ.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; No. 1, PLATE I. 7
18 bhindipâla-n[â]râcha - vaitastik - âdy - anêka - praharaṇa - virûḍh - âkula - vraṇa - śat - âṅka -
śôbhâ-samuday-ôpachita-kântatara-varshmaṇaḥ
19 Kausalaka-Mahêndra-Mâh[â*]kântâraka-Vyâghrarâja-Kaurâḷaka¹ - Maṇ-
ṭarâja-Paishṭapuraka-Mahêndra-giriKauṭṭûraka-Svâmidatt²-Airaṇḍa-
pallaka-Damana-Kâñchêyaka-Vishṇugôp-Âvamuktaka-
20 Nîlarâja-Vaiṅgêyaka-Hastivarmma-Pâlakkak-Ôgrasêna - Daivarâshṭraka-
Kubêra-Kausthalapuraka-Dhanañjaya - prabhṛiti-sarvva - dakshiṇâpatha-
râja-grahaṇa - môksh - ânugraha-janita-pratâp-ônmiśra-mahâbhagyasya
21 Rudradêva-Matila-Nâgadatta-Chandravarmma - Gaṇapatinâga - Nâgasên-
Âchyuta-Nandi-Balavarmm-âdy-anêk-Âryyâvartta-râja - prasabh - ôddharaṇ-
ôdvritta-prabhâva-mahataḥ parichârakîkṛita-sarvv-âṭavika-râjasya

¹ Read kairaḷaka, for which the word in the text is obviously a mistake.—The text, as it stands,
would give "the country, or city, of Kurâḷa;" but, though kurâla occurs in the sense of 'a light bay horse
with black legs,' it is not known as the name of a country or a city. Kêraḷa, on the other hand, is
so well known as one of the countries in the south of India, that it would be strange if it were omitted
in a passage like the present one; and it is easy to see how the engraver, or perhaps the writer from
whose draft he engraved, formed kaurâḷaka, by mistake for kairaḷaka, through a stroke on the right
of the top of the k in kai and of the ra.
² This is not altogether an easy passage to deal with. In the first instance,—coming imme-
diately after the mention of the city of Pishṭapura, which is the modern Piṭṭâpuram (the 'Pittapooram'
of the Indian Atlas, Sheet No. 94; Lat. 17° 6'; Long. 82° 18'), the chief town of the Piṭṭâpuram
Zamîndârî or Estate, twelve miles north by east of 'Cocanada' in the Gôdâvarî District in the Madras
Presidency,—the syllables mahêndragiri suggest at once a reference to the famous Mahêndra moun-
tain in the Gañjâm District, among the Eastern Ghauts, the 'Mahendrogiri' of maps (Indian Atlas,
Sheet No. 108; Lat. 18° 58' N.; Long. 84° 26' E.), which is mentioned in other early inscrip-
tions; for instance, as Mahêndrâchala, in lines 1 and 3 of the two 'Chicacole' grants of the Mahârâja
Indravarman (Ind. Ant. Vol. XIII. pp. 120, 123). And this tempts us to divide the passage thus,
Paishṭapuraka-MahêndragiriKauṭṭûraka-Svâmidatta, and to translate "Svâmidatta of Pishṭapura
and of Koṭṭûra on Mahêndragiri."—Another rendering that might suggest itself is "Svâmidatta of
Pishṭapura, Mahêndragiri, and Koṭṭûra:" which, in fact, except in respect of his mistake of Kudura, for
Koṭṭûra, was adopted by Dr. Bhau Daji (Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. IX. p. cxcviii.) But this is
not admissible, because it would require mahêndragirika in the text, instead of mahêndragiri; and,
though it is possible to find the final ka in the text as it stands, yet this would give us as the next
word, instead of Koṭṭûra (Koṭṭûr), which is a Drâviḍian name of frequent occurrence, Oṭṭûr, for which
I can find no authority at all, or Hoṭṭûr (if we assume an omission of the initial h), which occurs,
but not in connection with any place of importance.—If mahêndragiri is to be taken as one
word, and as denoting the mountain, the translation that I have noted above is the one that must be
adopted. And it might be supported by the fact that we have a Koṭṭûr on almost the same range of
hills as that to which the Mahêndragiri belongs; viz. the 'Kailaskotta and Kylascottah' of the map
(Indian Atlas, Sheet No. 107: Lat. 19° 14'; Long. 83° 36' E.), which represents Kailâsa-Koṭṭa or Kailâsa-
[

8 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
22 Samataṭa-Dāvâka-Kâmarûpa-Nêpâla-Karttṛipur-âdi-pratyanta-nṛipatibhir
Mmâlav-Ârjunâyana-Yaudhêya-Mādrak-Âbhîra-Prârjuna-Sanakâ-
nîka¹-Kâka-Kharaparik-âdibhiś-cha sarvvakaradân-ājñākaraṇa-praṇāmâ-
gamana-
23 paritôshita-prachaṇḍa-śāsanasya anêka-bhrashṭa-rājyôtsanna-râjavaṁśa-pratishṭhâ-
pan-ôdbhūta-nikhila-bh[uva]na-vicha[ra]ṇa-śānta-yaśasaḥ Daivaputra-Shāhi-
Shāhānushāhi-Śaka-Muruṇḍaiḥ Saimhalak-âdibhiś=cha
24 sarvva-dvîpa-vâsibhir-âtmanivêdana-kanyôpâyanadâna-garutmadaṅka-svavishayabhu-
kti-śāsana[y]âchan-âdy-upâya-sêvâ-kṛita-bâhu-vîryya-prasara-dharaṇi-bandhasya
pri(pṛi)thivyâm=a-pratirathasya
25 sucharita-śat-âlaṅkṛit-ânêka-guṇa-gaṇ-ôtsiktibhiś-charaṇa-tala-pramṛishṭ-ânya-nara-
pati-kîrttēḥ sâddhv-asâdh-ûdaya-pralaya-hêtu-purushasy-â-chintyasya bhakty-
avanati-mâtra-grâhya-mṛidu-hṛidayasy-ânukampâvatô-nêka-gô-śata-sahasra-pra-
dâyinaḥ²
26 kṛipaṇa-dîn-ânâth-âtura-jan-ôddharaṇa-sa(ma)ntradîksh-âdy-upagata-manasaḥ sa-
middhasya vigrahavatô lôk-ânugrahasya Dhanada-Varuṇ-Êndr-Ântaka-
samasya sva-bhuja-bala-vijit-ânêka-narapati-vibhava-pratyarppaṇâ-nitya-vyâpṛit-
âyuktapurushasya
27 niśita-vidagdha-mati-gândharvva-lalitair=vrîḍita-tridaśapatiguru-Tumburu-Nârad-
âdêr=vvidvaj-jan-ôpajîvy-ânêka-kâvya-kkriyâbhiḥ pratishṭhita-kavirâja-śabdasya
suchira-stôtavy-ânêk-âdbhut-ôdâra-charitasya
28 lôka-samaya-kkriy-ânuvidhâna-mâtra-mânushasya lôka-dhâmnô dêvasya mahâ-
râja-śrî-Gupta³-prapautrasya mahârâja-śrî-Ghaṭôtkacha-pautrasya mahâ-
râjâdhirâja-śrî-Chandragupta-putrasya
29 Lichchhavi-dauhitrasya mahâdêvyâṁ Kumāradêvyâm-utpha(tpa)nnasya
mahârâjâdhirâja-śrî-Samudraguptasya sarvva-pṛithivî-vijaya-janit-ôdaya-
vyâpta-nikhil-âvanitalâṁ kîrttim-itas=tridaśapati-

Kailâsa-Koṭṭa, mentioned by me above ; or, Koṭṭûr (from Koṭṭapura) being a very common Drâviḍian
name, may be looked for in any Koṭṭûr of note, in a mountainous part of Southern India, e.g.
possibly Koṭṭûr in the ' Coimbatore ' District, at the foot of one of the passes in the ' Anaimalai ' Hills,
(Indian Atlas, Sheet No. 61 or 62 ; Lat. 10° 32' N. ; Long. 77° 2' E.)
¹ In line 2 of the Udayagiri cave inscription of Chandragupta II. of the year 82, No. 3 below,
Plate iiB., this name occurs with the short vowel i in the fourth syllable.
² This visarga is imperfect, the engraver having omitted the upper half of it.
³ Mr. V. A. Smith (Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. LIII. Part I. p. 119, and note) has suggested that
this name was not simply Gupta, as it is usually accepted, but Śrîgupta, which form he has used
throughout ; i. e. that, in this instance, śrî is an integral part of the name, not the honorific prefix.
His grounds for this opinion are (1) that the past participle gupta, ' protected,' can hardly stand alone
for a proper name, whereas Śrîgupta, ' protected by (the goddess) Śrî or Lakshmî,' would be a complete
name, giving a suitable meaning ; and (2) that the Chinese pilgrim I-tsing (in India from about A.D. 673
to 693) speaks of a king or Mahârâja called Śrîgupta, who preceded his time by about five hundred years
(Jour. R. As. Soc. N. S. Vol. XIII. p. 571 : Ind. Ant. Vol. X. p. 110), and who has been identified by
some with the founder of the Gupta family.—In addition to the instance quoted just above, Śrîgupta
occurs as the name of a persecutor of Buddha (Beal's Buddh. Rec. West. World, Vol. II.
p. 151 f.) as the name of a Jain saint (Ind. Ant. Vol. XI. p. 252); and as the name of a mer-
chant (Nêpâl inscription, No. 13, line 12; id. Vol. IX. p. 176).—But, with regard to the present
passage, I have to point out (1) that, as it is now certain that the era used by the Early Guptas
commenced A.D. 319-20, the Mahârâja Śrîgupta, mentioned by I-tsing and referred by him to
about A.D 175, cannot be identified with the founder of the Early Gupta family, who lived in

(This page is blank and contains no inscription text or printed content.)

The provided image appears to be entirely blank/white with no visible text, inscriptions, or content to transcribe.

Please re-upload or check the image file.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; No. 1, PLATE I. 9
30 bhavana-gaman-âvâpta-lalita-sukha-vicharaṇâm-âchakshâṇa iva bhuvô bâhur-
ayam=uchchhritaḥ stambhaḥ [।*] yasya ¹ pradâna-bhujavikkrama-
praśama-śâstravâky-ôdayair-uparyupari-sañchay-ôchchhritam-anêka-mârggaṁ
yaśaḥ
31 punâti bhuvana-trayaṁ Paśupatêr-jjaṭ-ântar-guhâ-nirôdha-parimôksha-śîghram-iva
pâṇḍu Gâṅgaṁ p[ayaḥ] [॥] Êtach-cha kâvyam=êshâm-êva bhaṭṭâraka-
pâdânâṁ dâsasya samîpa-parisarppaṇ-ânugrah-ônmîlita-matêḥ
the fourth century A.D. (2) that, in the well-known name of the Buddhist saint Upagupta (e.g.
Buddh. Rec. West. World, Vol. I. p. 182; Vol. II. pp. 88, 93, 273), we have a precisely similar
instance of a past participle, meaning ‘hidden, concealed,’ standing by itself as a proper name; as
also, in its feminine form, Upaguptâ, in line 5 of the Asîrgaḍh seal of Śarvavarman, No. 47 below, Plate
xxxA. (3) that, when śrî is an integral part of any proper name of importance, it was customary to
emphasise it and prevent the possibility of doubt, by inserting the honorific prefix before it; thus,
mahâdêvyâṁ śrî-Śrîmatyâm=utpannaḥ, “begotten on the Mahâdêvî, the glorious Śrîmatî,” in line 2
of the Dêô-Baraṇârk inscription of Jîvitagupta II., No. 46 below, Plate xxixB.; śrî-Śrîpathâyâṁ
purî, “at the famous city of Śrîpathâ,” in verse in line 6 of the Byânâ inscription of Vikrama-
Saṁvat 1100 (Ind. Ant. Vol. XIV. p. 10); and śrî-Śrîpathâyâṁ, “at the famous Śrîpathâ,” in
prose in the Byânâ inscription of Vikrama-Saṁvat 1503 (id. Vol. XV. p. 239). The analogy would
require here the reading of mahârâja-śrî-Śrîgupta-prapautrasya; which, however, does not once
occur in the Early Gupta inscriptions. And (4) the word gupta does not appear at all in the name
of Ghaṭôtkacha in the next generation; it is only in the case of his son, Chandragupta I., and the suc-
cessors of the latter, that the word is of necessity only an integral part of a fuller name.—There is,
therefore, no objection, but on the contrary every reason, to read the present name as simply Gupta.—
The possibility remains, however, of its being an abbreviation of some fuller original name, other than
Śrîgupta. And on this point I will produce here a note with which Dr. Bühler has favoured me:—“I
“should say the name of the founder of the family was Gupta, not Śrîgupta in the sense of śriyâ guptaḥ
“(protected by the goddess Śrî). The name Rakshita occurs repeatedly among Brâhmaṇs and Buddhists;
“and means the same thing. The origin of such names as Datta, Gupta, Rakshita, &c.,” [the two first of
these are well-known surnames in Bengal in the present day] “must, I think, be sought for in the habit
“of the Hindus of shortening their names by giving only the first part or the second. The former prac-
“tice is alluded to by Kâtyâyana, in a Vârttika on Pâṇini, vii. 3, 45, where he teaches that, when the
“second part of a compound is left out, the a is to remain unchanged before the feminine termination
“â; thus, the feminine form of Dêvadattaka is Dêvadattikâ; but, if Dêvaka is substituted for
“Dêvadattaka, then the feminine is to be Dêvakâ, not Dêvikâ. The second shortening also is com-
“mon; thus, we have nâbhi for mṛiganâbhi, ‘musk;’ tâla for haritâla, a kind of tree; vâlî for
“khalêvâlî, ‘the post of a threshing-floor;’ and Bhâmâ for Satyabhâmâ, a proper name. From
“these facts it would seem that Datta, Gupta, &c., are abbreviations of longer names.”—The only
epigraphical instance that I can quote, of the omission of the first part of a proper name, is the use
of Śarman for Dhruvaśarman in line 11 of the Bilsaḍ inscription of Kumâragupta, No. 10 below, Plate
v. But instances of the omission of the second part of a name are common enough. Thus, we have
the use of Samudra on some of Samudragupta's gold coins, e.g. Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. LIII. Part
I. Pl. ii. Nos. 3, 4, 5, and p. 173;—of Chandra and Kumâra, for Chandragupta II. and Kumâragupta,
in the same series;—of Vikrama and Mahêndra, for their full titles Vikramâditya and Mahêndrâ-
ditya, illustrated partly in the same series, and partly in Kumâragupta's silver coins (Ind. Ant. Vol.
XIV. p. 66);—of Śârdûla and Ananta, for Śârdûlavarman and Anantavarman, in the Barâbar and
Nâgârjunî Hill inscriptions, No. 48 below, Plate xxxB. ll. 1, 4, 5, and No 49, Plate xxxiA. ll. 1, 8;
—of Kâkustha and Mṛigêśa for Kakusthavarman and Mṛigêśavarman in one of the Halsî grants
(Ind. Ant. Vol. VI. p. 28, ll. 3, 4);—of Harsha, for Harshavardhana of Kanauj, e.g. in the Kauṭhêm
grant of Vikramâdtya V. (id. Vol. XVI. p. 22, l. 26);—of Vikrama, for the Western Châlukya king
Vikramâditya VI., e.g. in one of the Narêgal inscriptions (Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. XI. p. 226,
l. 24);—and of Padma and Sûrya, for Padmapâla and Sûryapâla, in the Gwâlior inscription of
Mahîpâla (Ind. Ant. Vol. XV. p. 36 ff., ll. 1, 9, 22, 58.)
¹ This mark of punctuation is unnecessary.
C₂

10 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
32 Khâdyatapâkikasya mahâdaṇḍanâyaka-Dhruvabhûti-putrasya sândhivigrahika-
kumârâmâtya-ma[hâdaṇḍanâya]ka-Harishêṇasya sarvva-bhûta-hita-sukhây-
âstu । (॥)
33 Anushṭhitaṁ cha paramabhaṭṭâraka-pâd-ânudhyâtêna mahâdaṇḍanâyaka-
Tilabhaṭṭakêna । (॥)
TRANSLATION.
(Line 29.)—This lofty column (is) as it were an arm of the earth,¹ proclaim-
ing the fame,—which, having pervaded the entire surface of the earth with (its) develop-
ment that was caused by (his) conquest of the whole world, (has departed)
hence (and now) experiences the sweet happiness attained by (his) having gone to the
abode of (Indra) the lord of the gods,²—of the Mahârâjâdhirâja,³ the glorious⁴
¹ By taking an alternative meaning of uchchhhritaḥ, we might translate—"This column has been
erected, as if it were an arm of the earth," &c. But this would include the assumption that the column
had fallen, and was set up again in the time of Chandragupta II.; and in that case sthâpitaḥ would
have been a better word to use than uchchhhritaḥ, and the word would have stood better after, instead
of before, stambhaḥ. It seems best to adopt a translation that does not bind us to either view.—
Prinsep considered it to be proved that the column had fallen, and was set up again expressly to
display the present inscription. His grounds for this, opinion (Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. VI. p. 967 f.)
are, that there are several names on it which he considered to be in characters of a type interme-
diate between those of the Aśôka and the Gupta inscriptions, and one of which, at least, it would have
been exceedingly inconvenient, if not impossible, to have cut while the column was erect. But
this particular name, with several of the others referred to by him, is in characters that are
certainly of considerably later date than the Gupta inscription ; and none of the names are in characters
that are any earlier than the inscription.
² i.e. on his death.—Compare the expression in line 23 f. of the Karda grant of Kakka III. of
Śaka-Saṁvat 894,—"and when (his) elder brother, the glorious Kṛishṇarâjadêva, had ascended to
the skies, as if from a desire to conquer the realm of Indra" (Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. pp. 265, 268) ; com-
pare also line 14, verse 30, of the Gwâlior inscription of Mahîpâla of Vikrama-Saṁvat 1150 (id.
Vol. XV. pp. 37, 43),—"Padmapâla, still a youth, through the adversity of fortune, obtained a seat
[on the lap] of Saṁkrandana (Indra)."
³ Mahârâjâdhirâja, lit. 'supreme king of Mahârâjas' (see page 15 below, note 4), is one of the
titles indicative of supreme paramount sovereignty, and is the only expression that properly and fully
answers to our idea of a 'king.' I use it and all other technical titles and terms, without translation,
because, if only for the sake of uniformity and convenience of comparison, it is much better to use
them in this way, than to attempt to render them into English by expressions which must always vary
according to the idiosyncracies of the translators, and which can never suffice to give exact and
complete equivalents for the original titles.—The present title, Mahârâjâdhirâja, in somewhat
later times, is almost always coupled with two others, Paramêśvara, 'supreme lord,' and Parama-
bhaṭṭâraka, 'most worshipful one;' e.g. in line 50 ff. of the Alînâ grant of Śîlâditya VII., No. 39
below, Plate xxv. And the connection of the three titles was so constant, that a Rîwâ grant
(unpublished) of Trailôkyamalla, dated Vikrama-Saṁvat 1297, considers it unnecessary to give all
three titles in full, and contents itself with describing him as paramabhaṭṭârak-êty-âdi-râjâvalî-tray-
ôpêta, "possessed of the three kingly titles (lit. succession) commencing with Paramabhaṭṭâraka."—
Other titles of paramount sovereignty, occurring in this series, are Râjâdhirâja and Chakravartin.
⁴ śrî, 'fortune, majesty, glory,' and śrîmat, 'possessed of fortune, majesty, glory,' are words
of constant occurrence as honorific prefixes to the names of persons, gods, places, &c. I render them
by 'glorious,' in the case of paramount sovereigns and their wives ; 'illustrious,' of feudatories and other
ordinary persons ; 'saintly,' of priests, teachers, &c.; 'holy,' of gods; and 'famous,' of towns, &c.—
The usual rule seems to have been, to use śrî before a consonant, and śrîmat before a vowel; thus
śrîmad-Indrabala-sûnôr . . . . . . śrî-Nannadêvasya tanaya-prâptaḥ . . . . . . śrî-Mahâśiva-Tîvararâjaḥ,
in the Râjim grant of the Râja Tîvaradêva, No. 81 below, Plate xlv. l. 16 ff. But instances of deviation
from this occur; thus, without saṁdhi or the euphonic joining of vowels, śrî-Âdityasênadêva, in the
Shâhpur image inscription, No. 43 below, Plate xxixA. l. 2 f., and śrî-Âdityasênadêvas and śrî-

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; No. 1, PLATE I. 11
Samudragupta,¹—
(L. 1.)—[Who] . . . . . by his own kinsmen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;—whose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;—
(L. 3.)—[Who] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
twanging (of the bow-string) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . burst open and
scattered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dishevelled . . . . . . . . . . ;—
(L. 5.)—Whose happy mind was accustomed to associate with learned people;—
who was the supporter of the real truth of the scriptures; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . firmly fixed
. . . . . . . . ; —who, having overwhelmed, with the (force of the) commands of the col-
lective merits of (his) learned men, those things which obstruct the beauty of excellent
poetry, (still) enjoys, in the world of the wise, the sovereignty of the fame (produced) by
much poetry, . . . . . . and of clear meaning;—
(L. 7.)—Who, being looked at (with envy) by the faces, melancholy (through the
rejection of themselves), of others of equal birth, while the attendants of the court breathed
forth deep sighs (of happiness), was bidden by (his) father,—who, exclaiming “Verily
(he is) worthy,” embraced (him) with the hairs of (his) body standing erect (through plea-
sure) (and thus) indicati on (his) sentiments, and scanned (him) with an eye turning

Ijjâdêvyâm, in the Dêô-Baranark inscription of Jîvitagupta II., No. 46 below, Plate xxixB., lines 2 f.
and 5 f.; and, on the other hand, paramabhaṭṭâraka-mahârâjâdhirâja-paramêśvara-śrîmat-
Suvarṇavarshadêva-prithvîvallabha-śrîmad-Vallabhanarêndradêvaḥ, used in respect of the Râsh-
ṭrakûṭa king Gôvinda V in his Sânglî grant (Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 251, l. 39 f.); and numerous
other instances.—It has been suggested that only śrî, nct śrîmat, is used in the case of paramount
sovereigns. But this is not the case. In addition to the passage noted above in connection with
Gôvinda V., we have paramêśvara-śrîmad-Avantivarmand, in the Dêô-Baraṇârk inscription, l. 15;
śrîmad-Âdityavarma-prithvîvallabha-mahârâjâdhirâja-paramêśvaraḥ, applied to the Western
Chalukya king Âdityavarman in his Karṇûl grant (Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. XVI. p. 234, l. 12 f.);
paramabhaṭṭâraka-mahârâjâdhirâja-paramêśvara-śrîmad-Dhârâvarshadêva, applied to the Râsh-
ṭrakûṭa king Dhruva, in the Waṇî grant of Gôvinda III. (Ind. Ant. Vol. XI. p. 159, l. 33 f.);
śrîmad-Amôghavarsha-Nṛipatuṅga, used of king Amôghavarsha I. of the same dynasty, in his Śirûr
inscription (id. Vol. XII. p. 219, l. 16); śrîmad-Vikramâditya-śrîmat-Tribhuvanamalladêva, used of
the Western Châlukya king Vikramâditya V., in his Kauthêm grant (id. Vol. XVI. p. 24, l. 73); and
many other examples of the same usage.
¹ As regards the termination gupta, the Vishṇu-Purâṇa, Book iii. Chap. 10, verse 9, says—
“(The termination) śarman is prescribed for a Brâhmaṇ; varman belongs to a Kshatriya; (and) a
name characterised by gupta or dâsa is approved of in the case of (respectively) a Vaiśya and a Śûdra.”
The commentary in the Bombay edition gives, as examples, Sômaśarman, Indravarman, Chandragupta,
and Śivadâsa. (See also F. E. Hall’s edition of H. H. Wilson’s Translation, Vol. III. p. 99 f.) — So
also in the Mânavadharmaśâstra, ii. 31 (Burnell’s Translation, p. 20), a rule of the same tendency
is laid down, though without specifying any particular terminations.—On this authority, it has been
suggested that the Early Guptas were not of high rank, being at the best of the Vaiśya caste; and that
this is the reason why they felt such pride in their alliance with the Lichchhavis, as shewn by the
record of the name of Kumâradêvî and of her family on some of the gold coins of Chandragupta I.,
and by the epithet, “daughter’s son of Lichchhavi (or of a Lichchhavi king),” that is always applied
to Samudragupta in the genealogical passages.—No doubt some such rules as those prescribed by
the Vishṇu-Purâṇa and Mânavadharmaśâstra, were followed more or less in early times. But, as
instances of deviation from them, we have the name of the well-known astronomer Brahmagupta, who
it can hardly be doubted was a Brâhmaṇ; and Dâsavarman occurs, as the name of a Brâhmaṇ, in line
36 of the Nerûr grant of Vijayâditya, dated Śaka-Saṁvat 627 (Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 131; Indian
Inscriptions, No. 20); and doubtless numerous similar instances might be found, if proper indexes
were available.
C 2.

14 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III
(L. 22.)—Whose imperious commands were fully gratified, by giving all (kinds of)
taxes and obeying (his) orders and coming to perform obeisance, by the frontier-
kings¹ of Samataṭa, Ḍavâka, Kâmarûpa, Nêpâla, Kartṛipura, and other (countries),
and by the Mâlavas, Ârjunâyanas, Yaudhêyas, Mâdrakas, Âbhîras, Prârjunas,
Sanakânîkas,² Kâkas, Kharaparikas, and other (tribes);—
(L. 23.)—Whose tranquil fame, pervading the whole world, was generated by
establishing (again) many royal families, fallen and deprived of sovereignty;—whose
binding together of the (whole) world, by means of the amplitude of the vigour of (his)
arm, was effected by the acts of respectful service, such as offering themselves as
sacrifices, bringing presents of maidens, (giving) Garuḍa-tokens,³ (surrendering) the
enjoyment of their own territories, soliciting (his) commands, &c., (rendered) by the
Daivaputras, Shâhis, Shâhânushâhis, Śakas, and Muruṇḍas, and by the people
of Siṁhala and all (other) dwellers in islands;—who had no antagonist (of equal power)
in the world;⁴—who, by the overflow of the multitude of (his) various virtues adorned
by a hundred good actions, rubbed out the fame of other kings with the soles of (his)
feet;—who, being incomprehensible, was the spirit that was the cause of the production
of good and the destruction of evil;—who, being full of compassion, had a tender heart
that could be won over simply by devotion and obeisance;—who was the giver of many
hundreds of thousands of cows;—
(L. 26.)—Whose mind busied itself with the support and the initiation, &c., of the
miserable, the poor, the helpless, and the afflicted;—who was the glorified personification
of kindness to mankind;—who was equal to (the gods) Dhanada and Varuṇa and Indra
and Antaka;⁵—whose officers were always employed in restoring the wealth of the
various kings who had been conquered by the strength of his arms;—
(L. 27.)—Who put to shame (Kaśyapa) the preceptor of (Indra) the lord of the
gods, and Tumburu and Nârada, and others, by (his) sharp and polished intellect and
¹ pratyanta-nṛipati.—This may denote either the kings within the frontiers of Samataṭa and the
following countries, i.e. the ‘neighbouring kings’ of those countries, or the kings or chieftains just
outside the frontiers of them. Upon the interpretation that is accepted, will depend the question
whether Samudragupta’s empire included those countries, or whether it only extended up to, and was
bounded by, their frontiers.
² See page 8 above, note 1.
³ garutmad-aṅka.—Whether the bird be Garuḍa or not, we have here, I consider, a distinct
allusion to the ‘bird-standard’ on some of the coins of Samudragupta and his successors; see, for
instance, the coins given by Mr. V. A. Smith in the Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. LIII. Part I. Plate ii.
Nos. 3, 4, 5, 14, Plate iii. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, Plate iv. Nos. 4, 5, 7; see also id. p. 131 f., and Ind.
Ant. Vol. XIV. pp. 93, 179. — garutmat is explained in dictionaries as meaning ‘a bird in general,’
as well as denoting ‘the bird Garuḍa.’ But its most usual and special signification is ‘Garuḍa;’ as,
for instance, in line 7 of the Râjim grant of the Râja Tîvaradêva, No. 81 below, Plate xlv.
⁴ Three of the habitual expressions of the Early Gupta records, applied always and only to
Samudragupta,—viz. the present one; "who was equal to (the gods) Dhanada and Varuṇa and Indra
and Antaka," which we have here in line 26; and "whose fame was tasted by the waters of the four
oceans," which occurs, for instance, in line 1 of the Bhitarî pillar inscription of Skandagupta, No. 13
below, Plate vii.,—are applied, curiously enough, to the Châlukya chieftain Vijayarâja of Gujarât, in
line 5 f. of his Kaira grant of the year 394 (Ind. Ant. Vol. VII. p. 248). The only difference is that,
in the second epithet, the reading there is sama-prabhâva, instead of simply sama.—Of the present
epithet, the latter part, apratiratha, was used on some of Samudragupta's coins; e.g. Jour. Beng.
As. Soc. Vol. LIII. Part I. Pl. ii. No. 6.
⁵ See the preceding note.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; No. 1. PLATE I. 15
choral skill and musical accomplishments;¹—who established (his) title of ‘king of
poets’ by various poetical compositions that were fit to be the means of subsistence of
learned people;²—whose many wonderful and noble deeds are worthy to be praised for a
very long time;—
(L. 28.)—Who was a mortal only in celebrating the rites of the observances of
mankind, (but was otherwise) a god, dwelling on the earth;—who was the son of the
son’s son³ of the Mahārāja,⁴ the illustrious Gupta;⁵—who was the son’s son of the
¹ Nārada is regarded as the inventor of the vīṇā or lute; and, with this reference to him and to
the musical accomplishments of Samudragupta, we have to compare the coins of the ‘lyrist type’ (see,
for instance, Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. LIII. Part I. Pl. ii. Nos. 7, 8), which represent Samudragupta
playing the lute.
² Compare lines 6 and 16 of this inscription.—The title kavirāja, ‘king of poets,’ answering
somewhat to our ‘poet laureate,’ is still in use in Native States.
³ The English terms ‘grandson’ and ‘great-grandson’ are applicable to female as well as male
descent, and are therefore not suitable for use in translations from the Saṁskṛit. The Hindus were
almost always most careful about using properly discriminating terms, e.g. pautra for a grandson
through a son, and dauhitra for a grandson through a daughter; the status of the two lines of descent
differed even more than in European countries; and, in translating, it is necessary to preserve the
distinction accurately.—I will quote an instance in proof. In translating line 12 f. of No. 15 of his
Nêpâl inscriptions, Dr. Bhâgwanlal Indraji (Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 181) spoke of “Vatsadêvî . . . .
“the daughter of illustrious Bhôgavarman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and the grand-daughter of great
“Âdityasêna, the illustrious lord of Magadha.” From this, Gen. Cunningham (Archæol. Surv.
Ind. Vol. XV. p. 163) naturally enough treated Bhôgavarman, who belonged really to the Maukhari
family, as a son, instead of a son-in-law, of Âdityasêna. This mistake could not have occurred, if
dauhitrī had been properly rendered by ‘daughter’s daughter,’ instead of vaguely ‘grand-daughter.’—
The words that are fairly translatable by ‘grandson’ and ‘great-grandson’ are naptri and
pranaptri. They both occur in the grants of the Mahārājas Hastin and Saṁkshôbha, Nos. 21 to 23
and 25 below; and naptri occurs in line 5 of the Bhumarā pillar inscription, No. 24 below, Pl. xvA.
But the use of them is rare.
⁴ Mahārāja, lit. ‘great king,’ appears to have been, in somewhat earlier times, one of the titles
of paramount sovereignty. Thus, it is used, by itself, by Kanishka, Huvishka, and Vâsudêva, who,
there is every reason to believe, were paramount sovereigns, in their inscriptions of the years 9, 39,
and 83 (Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. III. p. 31, Pl. xiii. No. 4; p. 32, Pl. xiv. No. 9; and p. 34, Pl. xv.
No. 16); and, in conjunction with the higher title of Rājātirāja, ‘superior king of kings,’ by the same
three kings in their inscriptions of the years 11, 47, and 87 (Ind. Ant. Vol. X. p. 326; Archæol.
Surv. Ind. Vol. III. p. 33, Pl. xiv. No. 12, and p. 35, Pl. xv. No. 18). So also, in conjunction some-
times with the same word and sometimes with Râjarâja, ‘king of kings,’ the two together represent-
ing the Greek basileus basileon, it was used, in Prâkṛit, on the bilingual coins of earlier date; e.g.
in conjunction with Rājātirāja, on the coins of Hemokadphises (Gardner and Poole’s Catalogue of
Coins of the Greek and Scythic Kings of Bactria and India, p. 124 ff.), and, in conjunction with
Rājarāja, on the coins of Azes (id. p. 73 ff.) And, before then, it was used by itself, to represent the
Greek basileus, at a time when apparently the fuller title of basileus basileon had not been introduced;
e.g. on the coins of Hermaeus (id. p. 62 ff.)—But, in the Early Gupta and subsequent periods,
Mahārāja was habitually used simply as a technical official title, indicative no doubt of considerable
rank and power, but applied only to feudatories, not to paramount sovereigns.—From the way in
which the two titles are applied uniformly to Samudrasêna and his ancestors in the Nirmand grant,
No. 80 below, Plate xliv., the title Mahāsāmanta, lit. ‘great chief of a district,’ appears to have been
exactly co-ordinate with that of Mahārāja.—A third title, Mahāsēnāpati, lit. ‘great lord of the army,’
seems to have denoted equal rank with these two; since it is coupled with Mahārāja in the frag-
mentary Bijayagadh inscription of the Yaudhêyas, No. 58 below, Plate xxxviB., and also in the Walā
clay seal of Pushyêṇa (Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 274 f.)—And three other offices, viz. those of
Mahāpratīhāra, Mahādaṇḍanāyaka, and Mahākārtākṛitika, would seem to have been sometimes held
by Mahārājas and Mahāsāmantas; since we find all five titles applied to Dhruvasêna I. of Valabhî.
in line 13 f. of the Walā grant of Gupta-Saṁvat 216 (Ind. Ant. Vol. IV. p. 105).
⁵ As regards this name, see page 8 above, note 3.