269 
1861.] Identity of the Toramams of Id ran and Kashmir. 
sovereign Tarapani appears only to be a mislection of Toramana, 
Col. Cunningham was the first to point out the mistake with regard 
4o the name of the king, but by assuming the rest of Prinsep’s 
translation to be correct, he was led to opinions which the advan- 
tages of subsequent researches shew to be other than well-founded. 
He supposed that the record adverted to a regency of Dhanya- 
vislinu during the minority of the young prince Toramana, and 
by a curious mislection of the document now under notice, made 
him the son of Matridasa and the grandson of Matrikula.* Accord- 
ing to him the principality of Toramana extended from Eran to the 
banks of the Jumna, and his reign from A. C. 520 to 550. Mr. Fitz- 
Edward Hall in his “ Note on Budliagupta”f— accepts these deduc- 
tions with only a few reservations. He assumes Toramana to have 
been “ an usurper and a proximate, if not the immediate, successor 
of Budhagupta, the first sovereign of a tentative independent branch 
(of the Gupta dynasty P) which almost certainly ended with himself.” 
However this be, from the revised translation of the Eran records 
lately published by him, it is certain that one Matrivishnu who 
describes himself as a “ Maharaja,” “ the owner of the splendour of 
royalty,” “ of fame recognised as far as the four oceans,” “ of unim- 
paired wealth and dignity,”! and “ victorious in many a battle over 
his enemies”' — was the immediate ruler of a tract of country of which 
Eran was an integral portion if not the centre, and that he owned 
allegiance to a suzerain of the name of Budhagupta, whose dominion 
extended from the banks of the Jumna to that of the Nerbudda, 
and that his brother Dhanyavishnu succeeded him in his dominion 
at a time when one Toramana held the paramount power. This we 
accept from the statement of the inscriptions, without any reference 
to the argument implied in the remark of Mr. Hall when he says, 
“ By the kings of all ages the minting of money has been zealously 
* Bhilsa Topes, p. 163. 
t Ante, p. 145. 
+ It is remarkable that a critic so fastidiously exact as 
Mr. Hall, should, have overlooked the word mdna in the epithet and translated it 
“ of unimperfect wealth,” which at best can be but a dubious praise, quite 
unworthy of the royalty it is intended to eulogise. His version, in auother place, 
is open to a rhetorical objection from which the original is free. He makes the 
king acquire, “like as a maiden sometimes elects her husband, the splendour of 
royalty whereas according to the Sanskrit recorder the goddess of royal fortune, 
Jiaju Lakshmi, elects him as her lord. 
2 ii 2 
