432 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.&., XVIII, 
the Vedic passage (Taitt. Sam. iii, 1, 9, 4) in support of his 
view, and argues that the other text (Taitt. Sam. i, §; 25955 
merely a statement of fact and has not the force of an injunc- 
tion (vidhik). He emphatically asserts that the preferential 
treatment of the eldest son ‘‘ is forbidden by the Sastras. ”’ (i, 
6, 14, 10-13; S.B.E. II, p. 134-5). Vasishtha gives the eldest 
son a double share and a tithe of the kine and horses (XVIT, 
42-3; 8.B.E, XIV, page 88). Kautilya also provides for a 
preferential treatment of the eldest son :— 
Eka-stri-putranam jyesth-amsahy Brahmananam = ajah ; Ksha- 
triyanam = asvah ; Vaigyanam gavah, Sidranam = avayah t Cha- 
tushpad-abhave ratna-varjanam daganam bhagam dravyanam 
=ekam jyestho haret; Pituh parivapadyanam = abharanam 
cha jyeshthah | Sesha-dravyanam = etad = dravyasya va samo 
vibhagah 0) (Artha-sastra, Bk. IIT, Ch. VI). 
“Goats shall be the special shares of the eldest of sons, 
among Brahmans; horses among Kshatriyas; cows among 
Vaisyas; and sheep among Siidras ...... In the absence of 
quadrupeds the eldest shall take an additional share of 1/10th 
of the whole property ........ The father being dead, his 
carriage and jewellery shall be the special share of the eldest 

(IX, M2: SBE XK, page 347); but Manu like Kautilya 
is no blind supporter of primogeniture as he strictly enjoins 
separation and partition if the eldest brother “ behaves in a 
manner unworthy of an eldest brother’’ (IX, 110; S8.B.E., XXV, 
pages 346-7). Vishnu gives 1/20th part of the inheritance to 
the eldest as his additional share (XVIII, 37: S.B.E., VII, page 
73). But Yajfiavalkya takes a bold stand against the claim of 
the eldest son to a special share :— 
“Vibhajeran sutah pitror = ardhvam = riktham = rinam samam ” 
““ Let the sons divide the wealth of their deceased father 
equally among themselves.’ (II, 117). (Stenzler’s edition, 
page 58). Narada virtually abrogates the right of primogeni- 
ture as he declares that even the youngest son may be the 
family property, if specially qualified for the task (XIII, 5; 
S.B.E., XXXII, page 190). Brihaspati is clearly in favour of 
“* All sons of the twice-born, begotten on women equal in 
caste (to their husbands), shall take equal shares, after giving 
a preferential share to the eldest. 

