1861.] 
Note on Budliagupta, 
145 
that the column applies to Budliagupta, attest acknowledgment of 
him as sovereign lord. But this, unreservedly asserts the Professor, 
was mere flattery ; for Toramana was hut Budhagupta’s lieutenant.* 
Were Toramana allowed to have sat on Budhagupta’s throne, of 
course it would he impossible to provide kingship for Buddhagupta’s 
son Tathagata. 
Of Toramana’s having been a paramount king there is, moreover, 
pretty conclusive proof, apart from the testimony of the Eran hoar. 
By the kings of all ages the minting of money has been jealously 
reserved as a royalty ; and Toramana is known to have coined copper. 
This fact having been made public upwards of a year before Professor 
Lassen thought fit to uncrown Toramana, it is somewhat singular that 
it did not meet his eye in time for a note.f 
We have been told of Dhanyavishnu’s obsequiousness. And, if 
Dlianyavishnu must adulate, to stay up a theory, no less must Albi- 
runl opportunely go astray for the same end. To him only one race 
of Gupta kings was known ; and their line came to a close, he 
* “ We learn from the inscription on the colossal Yaraha Avatar, at Eran, 
that the paramount, sovereign Toramana possessed all the country about Bhup.il 
and southern Bundelkhand, not many years after the elevation of Budhagupta’s 
pillar; for the pillar was erected by Yaidalavishnu, at the expense of his cousin 
Dlianyavishnu ; while the colossal Boar was set up by Dlianyavishnu himself. 
The death of Budliagupta, and the accession of Toramana, therefore botli took 
place during the life-time of Dlianyavishnu. But there must have been an 
interval of some years between the two events ; as Dhanya’s elder brother, 
Matrivishnu, who is not even mentioned in the pillar inscription, had since 
assumed the title .of Maharaja, and was then dead. Dlianya himself then 
became regent, apparently to the young prince, Toramana ; for, in another 
inscription, from the Fort of Gwalior, I find Toramana described as the son of 
Matridasa and the grandson of Matrikula, who is probably the same as Matri- 
vishnu. As the celebrated hill of Pdayagiri is mentioned in the Gwalior inscrip- 
tion, there can be little doubt of the identity of the two Toramanas, and of the 
consequent extension of the principality of Eran to the banks of the Jumna.” 
Col. Cunningham’s Bhilsa Topes, p. 164. 
Much of this would be very plausible, provided Mr. Prinsep’s translations 
were not incorrect. Professor Lassen, with all his tampering, is not half so 
specious. The inscription from the Gwalior fort ought to be put in print. 
f See this Journal, for 1855, pp. 514 — 517. Colonel Cunningham’s rectification 
of Tarapani to Toramana was before the world two years sooner ; but Professor 
Lassen passes it unnoticed. 
