Vedic Index of Names and Subjects v1.c3.s18.232

v1.c3.s18.232

Thus Manu is said in the Taittirīya Saṃhitā² to have divided his property among his sons. He omitted Nābhānediṣṭha, whom he afterwards taught how to appease the Aṅgirases, and to procure cows. This is a significant indication that the property he divided was movable property, rather than land (Urvarā). In the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa³ the division is said to have been made during Manu’s lifetime by his sons, who left only their aged father to Nābhānediṣṭha. According to the Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa,⁴ again, four sons divided the inheritance while their old father, Abhipratārin, was still alive. It is, of course, possible to regard Dāya as denoting the heritable property of the family, but the developed *patria potestas* of the father, which was early very marked, as shown by the legend of Śunaḥśepa, is inconsistent with the view that the sons were legally owners with their father, unless and until they actually insisted on a division of the property.⁵ Probably—there is no evidence of any decisive character—land was not divided at first, but no doubt its disposal began to follow the analogy of cattle and other movable property as soon as the available supply of arable land became limited.