212 
A. F. R. Hoernle —Note on the Preceding Paper. 
[No. 4, 
Sir A. Cunningham reads Puru Gupta. He does not explain his 
reasons. But though he says that the reading Pura Gupta is “ quite 
inadmissible” (Z. c., p. 13, footnote), I note that he agrees with Dr. 
Fleet and myself in reading the first akshara as pu , which is the 
only point in dispute. His reading of the second akshara as ru is 
opposed to Professor Bidder, who agrees with Dr. Fleet and myself 
in reading ra ; and indeed, this particular akshara is on the seal as 
plain as it well cau be. 
Moreover the name Puru Gupta is not a whit more suitable than 
the name Pura Gupta. But I must confess my inability to quite 
understand the force of this objection of unsuitability. Pura Gupta 
does “ give sense it means (as Dr. Fleet points out) “ protected by 
a city, or by cities.” And why is it necessary that it should be “ the 
name of a deity ” ? (For the objections, see Observations , p. 83, 
footnote 2.) That may seem to us, perhaps, to have been more 
symmetrical ; but who is to judge those who gave or assumed the 
name P Any how, considerations of this kind, do not make evidence, 
to settle a dispute. I am free to confess, that I should have preferred 
reading Sura Gupta or Sura Gupta, if the case had permitted it; and 
if we are to have recourse now to emendations of the text as it stands, 
and to admit an error of the engraver, I certainly prefer Sura Gupta to 
Sthira Gupta, for which latter the seal offers no support. 
