2G8 
Identity of the Toramunas of Evan and Kashmir. [No. 3, 
have been lost of them. It is evident, however, that the extent of 
the loss cannot be great, and that of no material consequence in 
an antiquarian point of view, however much it may stand in the 
way of a literal interpretation of the monument. 
The subject of the record is the dedication of a temple to the sun 
in the 15th year of the reign of Pasbajpati son of Tobamana, by one 
Mateicheta son of Matbidasa and grandson of Mateitela. No 
information has been vouchsafed as to the antecedents of the donor, 
nor of the sovereign in whose reign the dedication was made, and 
entire silence has been preserved as to their native country. The 
name of the hill on which the temple is said to have been erected 
was Sarpahvaya, and that of the engraver Kesava, the former being 
either an alias or the name of a particular spot of TJdayagiri or the 
Gwalior Hill. 
The historical magnitude of this event cannot but be extremely 
insignificant, and the only point of importance in the document — the 
identity of the prince named — is so involved in doubt that nothing 
better than a conjecture can bo hazarded in regard to it. 
In one of the two inscriptions brought from Eran by Captain 
Burt, James Prinsep noticed the name of a paramount sovereign 
whom he called Tarapani. He was supposed to have been the 
successor of Budhagupta in Saurastra and liege lord of a petty 
chief of Bhupal who styled himself Maharaja Matrivishnu. Profes- 
sor Lassen, when commenting upon these inscriptions in his “ Indian 
Antiquities,” set the title Rdjddhiraja “ king of kings” to the credit 
of oriental hyperbole, and assumed Tarapani, the owner of it, to 
have been “ a viceroy of Budhagupta in Bhupal or Eastern Malwa.” 
The arguments, however, from which the Professor’s conclusions are 
drawn, are too weak to admit of any scrutiny. Prinsep, notwith- 
standing his untiring diligence and splendid critical acumen, was 
obliged, owing to his own want of familiarity with the Sanskrita, 
to depend upon his interpreters, and they, blind to the importance 
of the work upon which he was so ardently engaged, neglected their 
duty and trifled with him in all matters, in which he could not 
readily detect the imposition they practiced upon him. Hence it is, 
that his translation of the Eran records (vide ante Yol. VII. p. 631 
et seq.) is sadly defective in many respects. Even the proper 
names in two instances are misrepresented, and the paramount 
