1870.] Notes on Sanskrit Inscriptions from Mathurd. 123 



designed partly by wily covetous priests who, for a consideration, 

 dispensed sanctity to ordinary mortal names by recording tliem on 

 sacred edifices, and partly by a desire to buy celebrity or immor- 

 tality at a cheap cost by having one's name recorded on buildings 

 frequented by millions, and which were supposed to last to all but 

 eternity ; a counterpart of that feeling which makes the modern 

 tourists scribble their names under the dome of St. Peter. The late 

 Major Markham Kittoe availed himself of this idea, and recorded 

 the name of each subscriber to the Benares College Building Fund 

 over or around a separate arch or doorway of the College Budding 

 1 as the donor of that particular object, and not as a contributor to 

 the general fund. 



In the case of the inscriptions on statues (Nos. xn. xiii. xvn. 

 , the language is throughout different, and they leave no doubt in 

 the mind as to the object of their writers. 



One of the pillar inscriptions describes the edifice in which it was 



j found as the monastery (yihdra) of Huvishka, whose titles were " the 



great king, the king of kings, the son of God," following closely 



the numismatic Greek legend Basileus Basileun theodotoy. Major 



, General Cunningham first identified this prince with the Hushka of 



, the Rajatarangini and the Ooerki of our Indo-Scythian coins. He 



i reigned in Kashmir in the middle of the first century before Christ, 



I and from the circumstance of a monastery dedicated by him existing 



in Mathura, we may fairly infer that his dominion extended, at least, 



I as far down as that ancient city. 



A second inscription (Plate XI. No. xv.) gives the name of 

 another prince with the same ultra regal titles of Maharaja, rdjdtirdjd, 

 and devaputra, but owing to a lacuna in the stone, it cannot be fully 

 read. The first two syllables are unmistakeably Vdsu, after which 

 there is space in the facsimiles for three letters which Mr. Bayley 

 thinks were either mitrasija or devasya, making the whole n-ame 

 either Vasumitra or Vasudeva. As the mark of the long vowel is 

 distinct and Vasumitra is not strictly correct, I take the name to be 

 Vasudeva. That this prince was a successor of Huvishka, must 

 follow as a matter of course, if our inference about the date of this 

 inscription be correct : if it be doubted still, judging from the 

 character of his inscription, his time was not much removed from 

 that of the S 'aka king. 



