Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c9.s2.58

c9.s2.58

Johnston (J. R. A. S., 1929, 1 January, p. 77. ff.) points out that the *Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra* is not separated by a great interval from Aśvaghosha, and is distinctly earlier than the *Jātakamālā* of Āryaśūra (who flourished before 434 A. D. Winternitz *Ind. Lit.*, Vol. II. 276). An early date is also suggested by the absence of any reference to the Denarius in Book II. Chs. 12 and 19. But the mention of Chīnabhūmi and Chīnapaṭṭa in Bk. II, Ch. 11, precludes the possibility of a date earlier than the middle of the third century B. C. The reference must be to the great country of the Far East (Cf. "China which produces silk," Kosmas Indikopleustes, McCrindle's *Ancient India*, p. 162), and not to any obscure tribe on the outskirts of India. China silk looms large in the pages of classical Sanskrit writers. The great silk-producing country (as well as Kambu, Kauṭ, II. 13) clearly lay outside the horizon of the early Mauryas. The name 'Chīna' applied to the famous land can hardly be anterior to the first emperor of the Ch'in Dynasty (249-210 B.C., Mogi and Redman, *The Problem of the Far East*, p. 15). A post-Chandraguptan date for the Arthaśāstra is also suggested by (*a*) the reference to parapets of brick instead of wooden ramparts (II. 3), in connection with the royal seat, and (*b*) the use of Sanskrit at the Secretariat (II. 10). The imperial title *Chakravarti* (IX. 1) is not met with in inscriptions before Khāravela. The official designations *Samāhartṛi* and *Sannidhātṛi* find mention in epigraphs of a still later age.