336 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XVI, 
in interpreting a dhammalipi, the application which the word 
parisad has in the Dharmasastras is to be preferred to the 
application it may have in the Arthasastras. 
Pillar Edict V. 
This Edict amplifies the statement made in Pillar Edict 
IJ, namely, dupadacatupadesu pakhibalicalesu vividhe me anuga- 
he kate apanadakhina aye. A list is given here of the various 
animals accorded various kinds of protection when Piyadasi 
was anointed 26 years. The closing sentence of the E ict is :— 
yava saduvisativasabhisitena me etaye amtalikaye pam- 
navisatibamdhanamokhani katani. 
t does not appear to have been pointed out as yet in 
this connexion that there is a couplet in the Arthasastra of 
Kautilya enumerating the occasions upon which the king 
should effect bandhanmoksas 
<A gaara fuaas | 
waa a atat waz fata | 
[atfectd srivreaa, p. 147 of the 1919 edition] 
This vidhana, however, does not seem fully to account for 
the 25 bandhanamoksas which Asoka claims to his credit in his 
26th or 27th regnal year. In fact, if he had merely conformed 
to the Kautilyan vidhana, he would hardly have spoken of such 
conformity in illustration of his anugrahas. His exceedingly 
humanitarian tendency probably led him to find out many 
in his tipi egg Code. He is evidently emphasizing the 
comparatively large number of releases by which he had 
signalized hie: reign. The point of his pride is to be seen in the 
expression elaye amtalikaye, i.e. ‘in this short interval.”! 
Elsewhere, when referring to a considerable interval, his Edicts 
are found to use the word aratala or amtara, so that the word 
amtalika must have been deliberately employed here to denote 
a small period of time. 
Pillar Edict VI. 
This Edict, which is the last of the series engraved in the 
year 26 (current or elapsed) of Piyadasi’s reign, begins with 
the statement that he had caused dhammalipis to be engraved 
when is - been anointed 12 years. It then proceeds to say. 
se ta hata tam tam dhammavadhi papova hevam lokasa 
hitasukheti A stgcnenie’ 
he word papova has been explained by Bihler as equival- 
ent to Skt. prapnuyat. But this is phonetically inadmissible. 
