1889.] A. F. R. Hoernle— Inscribed Seal of Kumdra Gupia II. 101 



the surname of Pratapasila. According to Hiuen Tsiang the Valabhi 

 king Dkruvasena II. (or Dhruvapata),* who became king abont A. D. 

 625, was his nephew (/. e., probably sister's son) . All this agrees well 

 enough. That Vikramaditya {i. e., Kumaragupta II.) is described as 

 " king of S'ravasti " need be no difficulty. Kumdragupta's seal was 

 found at Bhitari, in the Ghazipur District of the N.-W. Provinces ; and 

 S'ravasti may well have been the favourite residence of that emperor. 

 Of course, if my suggestions are accepted, the narrative in the Raja- 

 tarangini is a confused, and even grotesque, perversion of the real facts. 

 S'iladitya is said to have been a son of Vikramaditya ; this is a confused 

 reminiscence of the fact, that Baladitya (i. e., Narasimhagupta) had a 

 son Kumaragupta II. Kramaditya ; — 'S'iladitya is said to have been ex- 

 polled by the people of Malava ; but it was Kumaragupta that was 

 " expelled," i. e., rebelled against by Tasodharman (S'ihiditya) ; — S'iladitya 

 is called Pratapasila ; but the latter was the surname of S'iladitya's rival, 

 Prabhakara Vardhana ; — S'iladitya Pratapasila is said to have been 

 seven times subdued by the king of Kashmir ; very possibly the king of 

 Kashmir had to carry on several campaigns against both S'iladitya 

 (Yasodharman) and Pratapasila (Prabhakara Vardhana), both of whom 

 aspired to bo " emperors " or "rulers of the whole world." The Raja- 

 tarangini's account of Matrigupta is still more grotesque. It makes 

 Matngiipta to be a poor " poet,"f and finally resign his kingdom and 

 retire to Benares, like a good Hindu. ! But it hardly needs an excuse for 

 charging the " history " of the Rajntaraugiiu with grotesqueness. The 

 utter untrushvorthincss of it down to the time of the Karkota dynasty 

 (Durlabha Vardhana I.), is, I believe, now generally acknowledged. Its 

 treatment of Mikirakula, who under that name is placed at B. G. 707,J 

 and of Toramana and Hiranyakula, is the most glaring evidence of it. 



I add a sketch of what seems to me to have been the fortunes of tho 

 imperial dignity during the periods immediately before and after the 

 Hv'ina troubles. I have shown them in the synchronistic table by printing 

 in red the names of those princes that bore tho imperial title of Maha- 

 rajadhiraja. From Chandragupta I. down to Kumaragupta II., c. A. D. 

 300-533, tho imperial dignity remained with the houso of the Early 

 Guptas. Under Narasinihagupta, c. A. D. 495, it was disputed by the 

 Hmia chiof Toramana. About 533 A. D., under Kumaragupta II., it 

 passed away to Tasodharman. § From him, it passed, for a period of four 



* Sea ibid., Vol. II, p. 267. 



t Perhaps a confusion with tho poot Mentha (or Matrimentha P) who is said to 

 have lived at his court. 



J See Shanker P. Pandit's Gaudaraho, Introd., p. lxxv. 



§ Evidence of Yasodharman' s or Yasovarman's imperial povvor are his coins 



