83 HISTORY OF CASHMIR. 



tury. The Raja Taringini however would throw him farther back, if 

 he preceded Sancara Verma, and place him in the close of the ninth cen- 

 tury. We need not expect however extreme accuracy in this matter, and 

 may rest satisfied with considering it as an approximation to the truth, and 

 generally as an additional testimony of Bhoja's having flourished early in 

 the tenth century". 



The reign of Jayapira from 772 to 803 may hereafter throw some light 

 upon the literary history of the Hindus, when the writings of the authors 

 patronized by him shall be met with. It is highly probable that CshiraIs 

 the commentator on Amera, in Avhich case, we have advanced one step in 

 the antiquity of that philologist. What author is meant by Bhatta is not as- 

 certained; it cannot be Mammatta Bhatta, the Cashmirian author of the 

 Cdvya Pracasa, as that writer must have been subsequent to Sri Hersha, a 

 king of Cashmir, who reigned about 40 years after our history closes, and 

 to whom, or to whose works, frequent reference is made in the Cdvya Pracasa. 



Another set of names of literary interest occurs in the reign of LalitaV 

 ditya, from A.D. 714 to 750. Two of the three are yet to be ascertained, 

 but it is highly satisfactory to have fixed the date of so eminent a writer as 

 Bhavabhuti. If Yasoverma, king of Canonj, should elsewhere appear 

 to be the same as Kirti Verma, it would tend to some important conclu- 

 sions in this branch of literary enquiry. The state of India at the period 

 of Lalitaditya's reign is tolerably well detailed by our author, but it is 

 unnecessary to examine the subject here, as it has been dwelt upon at 

 some length in the note relating to his supposed military marches. 



After passing the limits of the year 616, the character of our author's 

 chronology undergoes an unfavourable change. Thirty-seven princes in 

 three dynasties reign 1797 years, or on an average more than 48 years 

 each, an average term which very much exceeds possibility, and which can 

 only be explained by supposing either, that the number of princes is de- 

 fective, and that the reigns of those who have disappeared from the record, 



