Page:The Indian Antiquary Vol 2.djvu/42

 34 THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY. [February, 1873. latter, however, is glaringly incorrect: the dura¬ tion of the reigns of successive rajas never agrees with the period given in the dates of each succession; while Parmal Deo’s reign is dated 1044 Sambat, or a discrepancy of over 200 years from the date mentioned above. The date given by the Persian MS. of the succession of Sabhajit, son of Parmal Deo, 1223 Sambat, agrees more closely with that of the Hindi MS. The Persian MS. probably errs in excess of names; as, for instance, when brother succeeds brother on the gaddi, and the reign of the second is reckoned as that of a separate genera¬ tion. It is clear, however, that no correct date can be assigned to any tribe in the long pedigree till the invasion of the Muhammadans.* Chandra Varma, then, the reputed son of Chandra, established his dynasty after a series of battles waged, according to the Hindi MS., by countless hosts of horsemen, who were paid from extravagantly exaggerated treasures in Chande Chandawal in the Dakhan. To him and his successors the same MS. gives almost universal empire in India : he is represented as annually making expeditions with enormous armies and immense treasures, conquering raj&. after raja, and exacting tribute from the kings of Rftm and Ceylon. He, it is said, founded the fort of Kalingar ; and branches of his family settled themselves in the Karnatik, in Kallu Kanhfir, in Mirat, the Sambal country (Rohilkhand), and Kumaon. The latter raj was founded by Manik- chand, fifth in descent from Parmal DeO, and son of Bihr Deo, who reigned at Kanauj, accord¬ ing to the Persian MS. ; while the Hindi MS. gives Kandar Varma, grandson of Chandra Varma, as the founder.f It would seem fruitless to endeavour to define the exact limits of the territory actually subject to any one rtijil (as is attempted in Elliot’s Supp. Glossary) ; for the claims of each to universal empire are mere romance, dexterously coloured by the bard with glowing accounts of huge armies, countless treasures, and innumerable marriages. I divide the history of the Chandels into the following dynasties:— The Chande Chandawal. The Chanderi— founded by Damkhoh (Persian MS.) Bir Varma (Hindi MS.) this interesting race to verify the date, 800 A.D., given by him as that of their rise (it would seem to me to be that of the founding of Chanderi, the rftjfts of Chande Chandi- The Mahoba— founded by Madan Varma (Persian MS.) Man Varma (Hindi MS.) The Kanauj, founded by Sabhajit. The Sheorajpfir, founded by Sheoraj Singh. Of these five dynasties, those preceding the Mahoba line are pre-historic. Instead of the 18 rajas of Mahoba given in Elliot’s Glossary, the Persian MS. gives but 8, and the Hindi MS. but 14. I give them here. Man Varma. Gy an Varma. Jan Varma (? Nanda, Ganda—Ell. Gloss.) Gaj Varma. Kil Varma (? Kirat Varma—Ell. Gloss.) Sakat Varma. Bhagat Varma. Jagat Varma. Rahlia Varma. Suraj Varma. Rfip Varma. Madan Varma. Kirat Varma. Parmal Deo, after whom the suffix “ Deo” was invariably used. Of the causes of the several migrations, no satisfactory explanation is given in either MS. If we accept the Mahoba as the only genuine Chandel dynasty, the two preceding dynasties can represent only the settlement of junior branches of original stock in convenient situa¬ tions. It is, however, quite as reasonable to consider the whole lineage as one, and the migration to Mahoba (which is certainly not the original birth-place of a Chandel tribe, if name is any guide) as induced by the same causes as those that led to the subsequent migrations. With respect to the migration to Mahoba, the Persian MS. says :—“ At this time the raja of Kanauj,a Gahlwar, who till this time was rich and prosperous, first from the blows received at the hands of Rai-Pithaura, and afterwards from the pressure of Shahab-fid-din Afghan Ghori, left his home and established himself in Banaras. Then Sabhajit, by advice of his wazirs and khedives, established himself in Kanauj.” The Hindi MS., in along involved passage attributing the destruction of Kanauj to Prithiraj, says— “ Then Sabhajit left Mahoba for Kanauj.” This leaves the impression that the Chandels, finding the reputedly fertile and wealthy Kanauj open wal being eliminated); this sketch, however, is intended to show only what is contained in genuine native histories. t I have endeavoured, without success, to obtain accurate information on this point.
 * I regret I have not General Cunningham’s account of