1894.] A. F. R. Hoernle— Note on the Preceding Paper. 211 
indentation on the seal, not to any elevation. The cast , of which Dr. 
Fiihrer speaks, if well-made, should show this fact; and it is for this 
reason, that I do not believe that Prof. Biihler’s opinion (if he still holds 
it) is based on the cast. However, casts are not altogether serviceable. 
I may, therefore, mention here that there exist three electrotype fac¬ 
similes, made at my request in the Survey of India Offices in Calcutta. 
One of them was presented by me to the British Museum in London, 
and the two others to the Museums in Berlin and Calcutta respectively. 
These are in every respect as good as the original, and any one who 
cares may examine them to verify the reading Pura Gupta. On these 
facsimiles, as well as on the original seal, this particular name is legible 
enough to the naked eye; but as the note, ante, p. 166, appeals to the 
“ magnifying glass,” I may add that I did make use of a magnifying 
glass, when I first read the name, and so (I have no doubt) did Dr. 
Fleet. 
In the Indian Antiquary (J. c .) Dr. Fleet has explained the whole 
case so clearly, that I can do no better than quote his words :— 
“ In line 6, the name of the son of Kumaragupta I. is undoubt¬ 
edly Puragupta, as read by Dr. Hoernle. The suggestion has been 
made to me that the text has Sthiragupta, as a variant of the 
name of Skandagupta, who is the known son of Kumaragupta I., 
mentioned in the other records that we have. It is unnecessary to 
point out other objections to this suggestion, because Sthiragupta 
is most certainly not the name that we have here. The mark 
below the consonant in the first syllable is distinctly the subscript 
u, formed as in the case of mu throughout; and the smooth surface 
of the plate here shews that nothing over and above this mark 
was engraved: the subscript th was most certainly not formed. 
The consonant itself is a little rubbed; but it is distinctly p. 
The idea of a superscript i, derived from the collotype, is due, 
partly, to the fact that the up-stroke of thep runs a trifle too high, 
and partly to an indentation in the surface of the seal, above 
the first part of the p, which, in the collotype, has appeared in 
such a way as to justify the supposition of a superscript i ; the 
vowel, however, was not engraved. On the analogy of the names 
of the other early Guptas, my own idea, before seeing the original 
seal, was that the name here might be Suragupta, “ protected 
by the gods.” It is, however, indisputably Puragupta; which 
must mean “protected by a city, or by cities,” and is not to be 
taken as an abbreviation of Purarigupta, Puramdaragupta, or any 
such appellation,” 
