The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c27.18

v1.c27.18

The details of this peripetia are matter for inference; but the antecedents of the two chief actors in the drama are sufficiently certain. Chandragupta¹ is represented as a low-born connexion of the family of Nanda. His surname Maurya is explained by the Indian authorities as meaning 'son of Murā,' who is described as a concubine of the king. A more flattering account² makes the Mauryas an Himālayan offshoot of the noble sept of the Çākyas, the race of Buddha; and, apart from this connexion, the supposition of a tribal name seems probable, since a tribe of Morieis is mentioned by the Greeks³ and will perhaps be identical with the Moriyas of the Pāli books⁴. However that may be, Chandragupta had incurred the displeasure of Nanda, whom he had served in the office of *senāpati*, or Commander-in-Chief. He is said to have made an attempt against his master, instigated by the Brāhman Vishṇugupta, Chāṇakya, or Kauṭilya, who in his person, and perhaps also as representing a disloyal priestly movement, had been disrespectfully treated by the king. The case of Jehu offers a familiar parallel; but the outcome was otherwise. Chandragupta fled with his fellow conspirator⁵, who figures in literature as the Machiavelli of India. In the movement which subsequently led to the overthrow of Nanda Chāṇakya is represented as the directing mind.