18G2.] 
Vestiges of the Kings of Gwalior. 
395 
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 llajataran- 
gini. 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- 
liave 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 
1 have just read the old inscriptions here, (Iran) in the column and on the 
gigantic 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 first 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 is 
sansuratam. The result of a close re-examination of the w r ord 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 Tc or r. The vowel, if it had one, may have been a , e, or o (Why omit 
the i and the u?) 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 LITERAL 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 with 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 jagati, and 1 gladly let him 
have his choice : but his conversion of my jalada nilam into jalada Jchelam 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 khelarn. 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 maldpitustathd 
is quite as correct as the suggested mdlapitrostathd, the one being an itaretara 
samdsa , and the other a samdhdra. 
* Journal, Dombay Branch iioyal Asiatic Society, Vol. VI. p. 220, et seq. 
