1886.] 
Kavi Raj Sliyamal Das —On the Prithi lidj Pdsti. 
21 
Jai Chandra’s accession could nofc possibly have been in S. 1132 
(= A. D. 1075). 
The Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1864, Vol. XXXIII, 
No. 3, p. 232, has a table of the Rathors of Kanauj, by Major-General 
Cunningham ; 
V. s. 
A. D. 
Chandra Dev. 
.... 1106 
1050 
Madan Pal. 
. 1136 
1080 
Govind Chandra .... 
..... 1171 
1115 
Bijai Chandra .. 
. 1221 
1165 
Jai Chandra .. 
. 1231* 
1175 
That is Jai Chandra lived about one hundred* years after the Sam- 
vat accepted by the Jodhpur historians for his accession, as concluded 
from the * Prithi Raj Rasa.’ 
Again, referring to the inscriptions in the Journal of the Society of 
Bengal for 1858, No. 3, pp. 217-221, that is, copper-plates published and 
translated by Pitz-Edward Hall. 
(u) Madan PH Dev’s Grant—S. 1154 [= A. D. 1098, p. 221]. 
(5) Govind Chandra’s Grant—S. 1182 [= A. D. 1126, p. 243]. 
That is, even these sovereigns lived later than S. 1132, the year fixed 
upon for Jai Chandra’s accession, who really lived much later than they. 
(3.) In the same way, the bards of Amber (Jaipur) adopted S. 
1127 and S. 1151 corresponding to A. D. 1071 and A. D. 1095 for the 
accession and the death respectively of Prajun Ji Kachhwaha, who is 
named among the heroes of Prithi Raj, the hero of the ‘ Pdsdd 
These dates also can never be correct. Though I have nowhere come 
across the exact year when Prajun Ji preceeded to the gadi, yet, if he was 
a warrior of Prithi Raj, he must evidently have lived about S. 1249 
(= A. D. 1193) which is the correct year of Prithi Raj’s death. 
(4.) In like manner the annals of Bundi, Sirohi, and Jessalmer 
&c. have recorded incorrect eras, as found in or deduced from the ‘ Rasa ’ 
—a fact which interfered seriously with the true aim of annalists to re¬ 
cord true years. 
The argument that the scribe through mistake might have put 
down Samvat 11 hundred for 12 hundred, will be refuted on the followino* 
grounds:— 
(a.) The term ‘ twelve ’ cannot be replaced by ‘ eleven ’ in poetry, 
as the metre would not hold good. 
(h.) The ‘ Astrological terms ’ ‘ S'iva ’ and ‘ Har ’ used in the 
‘poem ’ for ‘ eleven’ cannot indicate ‘twelve,’ nor can twelve be substi¬ 
tuted for them. 
1231 — 1132 = 99. 
