________________
JULY, 1891.]
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF PIYADASI.
249
(II, XIII), the Pandyas (II, XIII), Satiyaputa, and Keralaputa (II.) I do not refer to Tambapaņņi (Ceylon), which is each time named at the conclusion, and as the extreme limit (ava taubapanniyá). The general situation of the Chodas and the Pandyas on the east coast and at the south extremity of the Dekhan, is sufficiently well known. As for the northern boundary, which divided the Chodas from Kalinga which was conquered by Piyadasi, it is difficult to fix it. Judging from the terms of the inscription, the territories acquired in this direction by the king would seem to have been of very great extent. They must have gone far to the south. On the other hand, the existence at Dhauli and at Jaugada of an edict specially referring to foreign nations, and to the duties in regard to them which are incumbent on the representatives of the king, leads us necessarily to the conclusion that these inscriptions cannot have been any great distance from the frontier of the empire. Satiyaputa and Koralaputa would appear to correspond in some way, on the west, with the Chôdas and Pandyas on the eastern side of the Dekhan. That at least would be the result, on the one hand, of the learned and ingenious conjecture of Dr. Bühler (pp. 12-14) regarding Satiyaputa, and, on the other hand, of the reading Keralapata - (according to Dr. Bühler the correct reading at Dh. is Kêlalaputa) - instead of Kếtalaputa at G. Such a conjecture is too convenient not to be a little subject to suspicion, but it has, nevertheless, since Benfey and Lassen, secured general acceptance, and it is difficult to make any other suggestion.63
To sun up; - The empire of Piyadasi is in its main features sufficiently delimited. It embraced the whole of Northern India, although his exact frontiers, both to the east and to the west, remain, more or less, undetermined. It is equally certain that the influence of the king, if not his full authority, extended to the central plateau of the Dekhan, and went even further to the south along the coasts. Moreover, we have proved that, at least towards the west, the south-west, and the south, his kingdom, properly so called, was bordered by provinces over which he exercised a suzerainty which was certainly active and effectual, but of which we cannot precisely measure the extent.
Piyadasi tells us on the whole but little regarding the system under which he administerai these vast dominions, his inscriptions being almost exclusively devoted to religious subjects. He only mentions his administration so far as it deals with religious and moral progress. It is merely in that direction that he would appear to have carried his personal reforms. These fall under two main classes ; according as he further extends the power and the duties of functionaries already existing; or as he creates new functionaries and new institutions.
The title purushas, men of the king,' would seem to be the most comprehensive term under which Piyadasi used to inclade all the representatives of his authority, 64 to whatever rank they belonged. He himself distingaishes them (Col. Ed. I) as superior, inferior, and of middle rank, and he evidently refers to them as officers, for they are mentioned together with the antamahámátras. He desires that they should conform to his instructions, and that they should direct the people in the good way. They are moreover, in one passage (Col. Ed. IV), contrasted in some degree with the rajjúkas. We shall shortly see by what characteristics these last require to be classified outside the category of functionaries properly so called.
Mahamatrg65 is also a generic term, analogous to amátya, though perhaps with a more extended signification. It should designate functionaries of every order, but of high rank, and was applied to bodies' (nikaya) of various officers (cf. XII, 9). Piyadasi, like his predecessors, was surrounded by them, and when he speaks of muhá mátras in general, it is impossible for us to specify what class of officers he had in view, or even to say for certain that he did not address
6 Rijaniyukta, as Kallaka explains the word in Manu, viii, 43.
64 Regarding the Kerala, cf. Lassen, I, 188 note. I do not refer to the HidarAja mentioned in the 13th edict. As he is separate from whe general list, we are without any index as to the direction in which we are to seek him, and the reading itself is still very doubtful.
65 Cf. Bühler, p. 37. Kern, J. R. A. S., N. 8., XII. p. 392.
