North Indian Inscriptions

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS

originally stood at the confluence of this river with the Śōṇ, spread lengthwise along the bank of the latter, as is known to us from Megasthenes and Patañjali.¹ This Junction is now near the Cantonment of Dinapore, about twelve miles above Patna. But it is well-known that these rivers have changed their courses considerably during the many centuries that Pāṭaliputra has fallen into ruins. It is also well-known that formerly the Śōṇ joined the Ganges immediately below the modern town of Patna. The tradition of this junction is preserved among the villagers to the south-west of Patna, where they still point to an old channel called the marā or dead Śōṇ. The antiquity of the name Kusumapura, is vouched for by Hiuen Tsiang,² who speaks of the city under both names, K’ u-su-mo-pu-lo, or Keu-su-mo-pu-lo, which he also explains by the Chinese Hwa-kong or Hwa-kung, ‘flower-palace’ and Hiang-hu-kong-sh’ing, ‘city or royal precinct of the scented flowers; and Po-ch’ a-li-tsu-ch’ing, ‘the city of Pāṭaliputra.’ He tells us that Kusumapura was the more ancient name of the two. And, though this point cannot be proved, there is no reason to controvert that the synonym Pushpapura or Pushpapurī was in use in early days. As a matter of fact, both these forms are found in Daṇḍin’s Daśakumāracharita which “probably dates from the sixth century A.D.”³ The name Pushpapura occurs also in Viśākhadatta’s Mudrārākshasa which has been ascribed by some scholars to 800 A.D. and by some to 400 A.D.⁴ Kālidāsa also mentions Pushpapura as the capital of Magadha in the Raghuvaṁśa,⁵ and this poet, as we have seen above, was most probably a protégé of Samudragupta’s son, Chandragupta, also known as Vikramāditya. Pushpapura was thus certainly known as a synonym of Pāṭaliputra even early in the Gupta period. Verse 7 of our inscription may, therefore, be taken as furnishing good grounds for locating Samudragupta’s capital at Pāṭaliputra.

>

Nevertheless, Fleet has drawn our attention to the following points which run contrary to this view: “(1) Until the time of Skandagupta, no inscriptions of this dynasty have been found anywhere in the neighbourhood of Pāṭaliputra. (2) Though Pāṭaliputra is mentioned, under its own proper name, in two of the inscriptions of Chandragupta II, yet neither of these passages connects the city with him, as his capital. And (3) Hiuen Tsiang mentions another ancient Kusumapura, —for which the synonym Pushpapura would be equally acceptable,—far distant, and quite distinct, from Pāṭaliputra. He tells us that the old capital of Kanyākubja, or Kanauj, was originally called Kusumapura. And, though he is not absolutely specific on the point, yet the way in which he describes how the town came to be invested with the name of Kanyākubja seems to indicate that he understood Kusumapura to be the ancient name of the very site, which, in his time, was called Kanyākubja. A capital here or anywhere in this neighbourhood, would be far more in accordance with the localities at which all the earlier inscriptions of the dynasty exist; and still more so with a selection of a column either at Allahabad or at Kauśāmbī, to contain the record of the conquests of Samudragupta, by whom the power of the family was brought to maturity and was placed on an extensive footing.”⁶ Let us now consider, briefly, of course, the arguments urged by Fleet against the identification of Samudragupta’s Pushpa with Pāṭaliputra. He says that Kusumapura was another name also of Kanyākubja and that its synonym, Pushpa, which is mentioned in the Allahābād pillar inscription, had better be taken to denote this place rather than Pāṭaliputra. And, in support of his first state-
_________________________________________________

¹ Ind. Ant., Vol. VI, p. 131; Mahābhāshya (Third edition, edited by Kielhorn), Vol. I, II, i, 16, p. 380; IC., Vol. II, p. 57.
² S. Beal, Buddhist Records of the Western World, Vol. II, p. 83 and note 4; Thomas Watters, On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India, Vol. II, pp. 87 ff.
³ Macdonell, A History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 332. See also A. B. Keith, A History of Sanskrit Literature, pp. 296-97.
⁴ Macdonell, op, cit., p. 365; Smith, EHI (Fourth edition)., p. 45, note 1.
⁵ Canto VI, verse 24.
⁶ CII., Vol. III, 1888, p. 5.