1888.] 
H. Beveridge —The Era oj Lachhman Sen. 
3 
Now Bakhtivar Khilji took Nadiya apparently in 590 A. H. = 1194 
A. D. (Raverty’s translation, p. 559 note), or in 1195 A. D. according to 
General Cunningham. If then Lachhman began to reign in 1119 and 
reigned eighty years, this would bring the termination of his government 
to 1199 A. D., which is a tolerably close approximation to the dates of 
the capture of Nadiya given by Raverty and Cunningham. If we take 
Mr. Blochmann’s date for that event, viz., 1198 or 1199 then there is an 
almost complete coincidence between Abu-LFazl’s date of 1119 for the 
commencement of Lachhman Sen’s reign and the statement in the Tabaqat 
of Minhaju-d-din that Lachhman reigued eighty years. That is, if the 
eighty years be taken to be calendar years. If, on the other hand, 
they are taken to be Muhammadan or lunar years, they will amount to 
somewhat less than seventy-eight calendar years. Major Raverty, in 
a note at p. 558 of his translation of the Tabaqat, quotes one Munshi 
Sham Parsad as saying in an account of Gaur that Rai Lachhman 
ruled from 510 to 590 A. H. Major Raverty adds that this is correct, but 
it can only be made to agree with the Tabaqat by reckoning the eighty 
years of the reign as lunar years; for 510—590 A. H. is equal to 
1116—1195 or 1194 A. D. 
General Cunningham’s idea, that the Lachhman Sen era was 
established on the death of that prince, is opposed to the statement of 
Abu-1-Fazl, and also seems to be improbable. It is not common either in 
the East or West to begin an era with a death. Men generally date 
from a birth or from an accession to a throne. Akbar, it is true, or¬ 
dered that the Tarikh Alfi, or history of a thousand years, should begin 
from the death of Muhammad, but this was a freak of despotism, occa¬ 
sioned apparently by a superstitious aversion to the word Hijrah, which 
was ill-omened from its meaning “ flight.” 
If, however, we adopt General Cunningham’s view and also hold that 
the Lachhman Sen of the era is the father of Lakhmania, the last king 
of Bengal, then we find that the death of the father and the birth of the 
son occurred almost at the same time, and in this way Abu-l-Fazl’s state¬ 
ment and General Cunningham’s may be reconciled. Lakhmania, the last 
king of Bengal, was a posthumous son. When his father died, his mother 
was far advanced in her pregnancy, and the nobles put the crown on her 
womb and did homage to her and the unborn child. She had herself 
hung up head downwards for two hours, in order that the birth might be 
delayed till an auspicious moment. He was born, and the poor mother 
expired, and then the infant was laid on the throne. 
It is in this way that he is said to have reigned eighty years. I 
this horrible story is true, we need not wonder at Lakhmania’s mis¬ 
fortunes. He was emphatically one cui non risere parentes. Thus then 
