Note on Budhagupta. 
.1 12 
[No. 2, 
seems necessary to reproduce. Premising tlie name of S'akraditya, 
he remarks : 
“ His son Buddhagupta succeeded. * * * None hut very meagre 
indications relative to his reign are to be drawn from the inscription 
where he is commemorated, which bears date in the year 165 of the 
Gupta era, corresponding to A. D. 484. . Prom this date the time of 
his rule may be gathered with some certainty. If we suppose that 
he ascended the throne in 460, and that Chandrapriya* had been 
king till about 435, the interval from this year to 460 is adequately 
supplied by the reign of S'akraditya. The [other Eran] inscription 
states that Dhanyavishnu, brother of the late king Matrivishnu, son 
of Harivishpu, and greatgrandson of Indravishnu, consecrated a tem- 
ple to Narayana in his aprine epiphany. This was in the first year 
of the sovereignty of Tarapani, f on the tenth day of the month of 
Phalguna, or on the twenty-fifth of February. That Tarapani is 
designated as paramount king of the king is, indubitably, to be 
set to the account of adulation on the part of his vassal ; and Tara- 
pani turns out to have been only Buddhagupta’s viceroy in Bhopal, 
or Eastern Malava. The monumental column was erected by Vaida- 
lavishnu, a younger brother of Maitrayana ;J and the cost of the 
whole undertaking was defrayed by Dhanyavishnu. This was on the 
thirteenth day of the month of A'shadha, or at the end of June, in 
* It is a sheer guess, and a wrong one, that Chandrapriya was predecessor of 
S'akraditya. He was wanted as a link : and nothing more need be said of him. 
The name, according to Professor Lassen, can be only another form of the more 
usual Chandragupta. Indisctie Alterthumsknnde , Yol. III., p. 655. 
t I remarked, at p. 15, supra, that the fact of the Eran column's reading 
Toramana, not Tarapani, “if my memory does not fail me, was detected by Mr. 
Thomas.” It did fail me. Colonel Cunningham it was that discovered the right 
word. See his Bhilsa Topes , p. 164. 
J In justification of this, we are told, designedly as corrective of Mr. Prinsep : 
‘ In place of Maitrdyana-kripabhasya must be read Maitrdyana-kulajasya , i. e., 
born in the family of Mitra.’ But Maitra would stand between Maitrayana and 
Mitra; and, besides, Mr. Prinsep has Maitrayandya. As shown at pp. 18 and 
19, supra, the column exhibits Maitrdyaniya-nripabhasya. This I hastily 
rendered ‘ of the illustrious Maitrayam'ya monarchs.’ As a substitute should, 
no doubt, be put * star of the Maitrayaniya monarchs and all but the first two 
sentences of my appended annotations is to be cancelled. 
Also see the end of the fourth note forward. 
