1862.] Vestiges of the Kings of Qwalior. 895 



Bombay, in his paper on Kalidasa,* arguing on very different grounds, 

 has come to the conclusion that the different Toramanas noticed in 

 inscriptions are identical with the prince named in the Rajataran- 

 gim. The date he assigns to them is, however, a century later. 

 This I am not at all surprised at. Dealing with a subject on which 

 exact information is of course impossible, and where historical con- 

 clusions are of necessity to a great extent hypothetical it would be 

 remarkable if at least some of my assertions were not met with oppo- 

 sition. The writer of a letter " on some recent statements touching 

 certain of the Gupta Kings and others," adverting to my remark 

 that the Toramana of Kashmir lived about the end of the fifth cen- 



have no partiality for it whatever. The fact is simply that the original symbols 

 looked to me, in the dilapidated condition in which I found them, rather like the 

 constituents of sansurabhu than like anything else." And now to complete the 

 renunciation, we have the learned gentleman in his last paper (ante p. 127) 

 informing his readers, that when his paper in the Eran inscriptions was written, 

 he had only a facsimile before him and not the original. This may appear very 

 startling without proof, and I therefore quote his words. " For the second time 

 I have just read the old inscriptions here, (Iran) in the column and on the 

 giganlic stone boar. It has caused me no surprise to find, that my former 

 decipherments of them admit of a few corrections." (No surprise indeed after 

 the ' letter by letter' comparison !) " Four months after my fiest visit to 

 Eran writing under the guidance of my facsimile copy, (and not the 

 original?) I said of what looked to me like sansurabhu, that it is doubtful in its 

 penultimate syllable, and very doubtful in its final. Mr. Prinsep's, lection ie 

 sansuratam. The result of a close re-examination of the word as it stands on the 

 stone is this. The final syllable is clearly tri. The penultimate, judged by 

 what is left of it in its damaged state, could not well have contained any conso- 

 nant but h or r. The vowel, if it had one, may have been d, e, or o (Why omit 

 the i and the «?) Possibly the word was sansuratri, and it may be a plausible 

 theory, that it was the name of the country which had the Yamuna and the 

 Narmada for two of its boundaries. Or is it a repetition of the date, an 



ABBREVIATION OF SAMVAT FOLLOWED BY THREE LITERAI SYMBOLS OF ARITHMETI- 

 CAL value ? If I had access to Mr. Thomas' edition of Mr. Prinsep's Indian 

 Antiquities, it might be easy to say, whether this last suggestion is of any account." 

 So that what was given with so much positivity as sansurabhu now melts into 

 three figures of arithmetic! If patient examination, letter by letter, lead to 

 nothing better, I must hold myself excused for not at once pinning my faith to 

 the new reading of the Gwalior inscription lately published by the Doctor, or 

 joining witii him in invoking " the shade of Sakatayana" to rescue myself from 

 a misprint. I guessed the first word of the Gwalior record to be jagati from the 

 ti which is alone visible, Dr. Hall would take it for jayaii, and 1 gladly let him 

 have his choice : but his conversion of my jalada nilam into jalada l-helam is 

 quite inadmissible. It is used as an adjective to dhdntam ' darkness,' which may 

 well be compared to " black clouds" jalada nilam, but not to " playful clouds" 

 jalada Ichelam. The next alteration is udayagiri into udayanaga both meaning 

 literally the mountain where the sun rises, but udayanaga has not the support of 

 Indian usage. The upadhmdniya is a printer's blunder, and my mdidpiiustathd 

 is quite as correct as the suggested mdldpitrostathd, the one being an itaretara 

 samusa, and the other a samdhdra, 



* Journal, Bombay Branch Koyal Asiatic Society, Vol. VI. p. 220, et seq. 



