396 
Vestiges of the Kings of Gwalior. 
[No. 4, 
tury observes “ No attempt whatever has been made to set aside 
my implied assignment of him on the basis of an ascertained date 
to the first half of the second century, and the time of Budhagupta, 
on which his own depends, is hypothetically reckoned by the Babu 
in an era which perhaps began in A.. D. 278. The result is a 
difference of three hundred and thirty-five years.” The ascertained 
date to which the writer so emphatically appeals is contained in a 
foot-note to his paper on the Eran inscriptions, (Ante Vol. XXX. 
p. 15) in which he says ; “ Since writing this paper I have had time 
before sending it to the press, to refer for a solution of the date in ques¬ 
tion, to my friend Bapu Deva S'astrin, Professor of Mathematics in 
the Benares College. He apprises me in reply that it conforms to the 
era of Vikramaditya and does not conform to that of Salivahana. 
It is therefore, all but demonstrably certain that Budhagupta was 
reigning on Thursday, the 7th of June, in the year of our Lord one 
hundred and eight, new style. Toramana must have flourished short¬ 
ly after him with something of likelihood indeed as his next suc¬ 
cessor.” Thus the basis is no other than the ipse dixit of Pandita 
Bapu Ideva, opposed as it is to the deductions of Prinsep, Thomas, 
Cunningham, and other distinguished orientalists. I have the 
highest respect for the Pandita’s learning. But I know not how 
he can positively deduce from the data of the Eran document, that 
it was recorded in the era of Vikramaditya and of no other. The date 
there given is : “ In the year 165, on the 12th day of the light fort¬ 
night of the month of Xshadha,” according to the revised decyplier- 
ment published in the last volume of this Journal, and 11 165, the 
thirteenth day of the light fortnight, in the month of Xshadha” 
agreeably to Prinsep’s reading.t The facsimile published by Prin¬ 
sep is in favour of his version, but the accuracy of that document has 
been questioned, and therefore until another facsimile is published, it 
is impossible to decide which of the two is the correct reading. And 
since the premise thus remains undecided, deductions founded upon 
it must necessarily be very dubious. Even were I to admit the date 
of the re-decypherer, I. do not think it would follow, (I have not 
the leisure now to calculate,) that the 12th of the light fortnight in 
Xshadha on the meridian of Gwalior could be conjoined with a Thurs¬ 
day only on the 165th year of Vikramaditya, and on no other year. 
* Ante Vol. XXX. p. 3S7. t Ante Vol. VII. p. G34. 
