women in India were subjected to less social restraint in former days than they are at present. True, the ancient lawgiver, Manu, speaks of women as having no will of their own, and totally unfit for independence; but he probably described a state of society which it was the aim of an arrogant priesthood to establish, rather than that which really existed in his own time. At a later period the pride of Bráhmanism, and still more recently the influence of Muhammadanism, deprived women of even such freedom as they once enjoyed; so that at the present day no Hindú woman has, in theory, any independence. It is not merely that she is not her own mistress: she is not her own property, and never, under any circumstances, can be. She belongs to her father first, who gives her away to her husband, to whom she belongs for ever *. She is not considered capable of so high a form of religion as man †, and she does not mix freely in society. But in

woman.

unveiled. I here translate the passage, as it bears very remarkably on this interesting subject. Ráma says to Vibhíshana-Neither houses, nor vestments, nor enclosing walls, nor ceremony, nor regal insignia (rája-satkára), are the screen (ávaraṇa) of a It is her own virtue alone (that protects her). In great calamities (vyasaneshu), at marriages, at the public choice of a husband by maidens (of the Kshatriya caste), at a sacrifice, at assemblies (sansatsu), it is allowable for all the world to look upon women (strínám darśanam sárvalaukikam).”

* Hence when her husband dies she cannot be remarried, as there is no one to give her away. In fact, the remarriage of Hindú widows, which is now permitted by law, is utterly opposed to all modern Hindú ideas about women; and there can be no doubt that the passing of this law was one cause of the mutiny of 1857. It is clear from the story of Damayantí, who appoints a second Swayamvara, that in early times remarriage was not necessarily a violation of propriety; though, from Damayantí's wonder that the new suitor should have failed to see through her artifice, and from her vexation at being supposed capable of a second marriage, it may be inferred that a second marriage was even then not altogether reputable.

† No doubt the inferior capacity of a woman as regards religion was implied in the epic poems, as well as in later works. A husband was said to be the wife's divinity, as well as her lord and master, and her best religion was to please him. See Sítá's speech, p. 13 of this book. See also the quotation from Mádhava Acharya (who flourished in the 14th century), at p. 17, note *. Such verses as the following are com

ancient times, when the epic songs were current in India, women were not confined to intercourse with their own families; they did very much as they pleased, travelled about, and showed themselves unreservedly in public *, and, if of the Kshatriya caste, were occasionally allowed to choose their own husbands from a number of assembled suitors †. It is clear, moreover, that in many instances there was considerable dignity and elevation about the female character, and that much mutual affection prevailed in families. Nothing can be more beautiful and touching than the pictures of domestic and social happiness in the Rámáyaṇa and Mahá-bhárata. Children are dutiful to their parents ‡ and submissive to their superiors; younger brothers are respectful

mon in Hindú literature: Bhartá hi paramam náryá bhúshaṇam, bhúshanais viná, a husband is a wife's chief ornament even without (other) ornaments.' Manu says (V. 151), Yasmai dadyát pitá tv enám bhrátá vánumate pituh, Tam suśrúsheta jívantam sansthitam cha na langhayet, 'Him to whom her father may give her, or her brother with her father's consent, let her obey while he lives, and when he dies let her never slight him.' In book IV. 198, Manu classes women with Súdras.

* Especially married women. A wife was required to obey her husband implicitly, but in other respects she was to be independent (swatantryam arhati, Mahá-bhár. I. 4741). Sítá, as we have seen, was allowed to show herself to the army; and, in illustration of what was said in a former note, we may here add that Sakuntalá appeared in the public court of king Dushyanta; Damayantí travelled about by herself; and in the Uttara-Ráma-charita, the mother of Ráma comes to the hermitage of Válmíki. It is certain that women were present at dramatic representations, visited the temples of the gods, and performed their ablutions with little privacy; which last custom they still practise, though Muhammadan women are prohibited from doing so. (Wilson, Hindú Theatre, vol. I. xliii.)

†The Swayamvara, however, appears to have been something exceptional, and only to have been allowed in the case of the daughters of kings or Kshatriyas. See Draupadí-swayamvara, 127: see also Mahá-bhár. I. 7926.

Contrast with the respectful tone of Hindú children towards their parents, the harsh manner in which Telemachus generally speaks to his mother. Filial respect and affection is quite as noteworthy a feature in the Hindú character now as in ancient times. I have been assured by Indian officers that it is common for unmarried soldiers to stint themselves almost to starvation-point, that they may send home money to their aged

I

to elder brothers; parents are fondly attached to their children, watchful over their interests and ready to sacrifice themselves for their welfare; wives are loyal, devoted, and obedient to their husbands, yet show much independence of character, and do not hesitate to express their own opinions; husbands are tenderly affectionate towards their wives, and treat them with respect and courtesy; daughters and women generally are virtuous and modest, yet spirited and, when occasion requires, courageous; love and harmony reign throughout the family circle. Indeed, it is in depicting scenes of domestic affection, and expressing those universal feelings and emotions which belong to human nature in all time and in all places, that Sanskrit epic poetry is unrivalled. In this respect not even Greek epos can compete with it. It is not often that Homer takes us out of the battlefield; and if we except the lamentations over the bodies of Patroclus and Hector, the visit of Priam to the tent of Achilles, and the parting of Hector and Andromache, there are no such pathetic passages in the Iliad as the death of the 'hermit-boy,' the pleadings of Sítá for permission to accompany her husband into exile, and the whole ordeal-scene at the end of the Rámáyaṇa. In the Indian epics such passages abound, and, besides giving a very high idea of the purity and happiness of domestic life in ancient India, indicate a capacity in Hindú women for the discharge of the most sacred and important social duties.

We must guard against the supposition that the women of India at the present day have altogether fallen from their ancient character. Notwithstanding the corrupting example of Muhammadanism, and the degrading tendency of modern Hindúism, some remarkable instances

parents. In fact, in proportion to the weakness or rather total absence of the national is the strength of the family bond. In England, where national life is strongest, children are far more independent, and less respectful to their parents. In this the Hindús might teach us a good lesson.

may still be found of moral, social, and even intellectual excellence *. These, however, are exceptions, and we may rest assured, that until Asiatic women, whether Hindú or Muhammadan, are elevated and educated, our efforts to raise Asiatic nations to the level of European will be fruitless t. Let us hope that when the Rámáyana and Mahá-bhárata shall no longer be held sacred as repositories of faith and storehouses of religious tradition, the enlightened Hindú may still learn from these poems to honour the weaker sex; and that Indian women, restored to their ancient liberty and raised to a still higher position by becoming joint-partakers of Christ's religion, may do for our Eastern empire what they have done for Europe-soften, invigorate, and ennoble the character of its people.

* In some parts of India, especially in the Maráthí districts, there is still considerable freedom of thought and action allowed to women.

† Manu gives expression to a great truth when he says (III. 145), Sahasram tu pitrín mátá gauraveņátirichyate.

ANALYSIS OF THE RÁMÁYAṆA.

(Observe-The poem consists of seven books, but the seventh, or Uttara-kánda, is generally admitted to be a later addition.)

FIRST BOOK or BALA-KANDA, also called ADI-KANDA.-The real story of the poem does not begin till the 5th chapter of this book *. The first four chapters are introductory, and are probably much later in date than the body of the poem. In the first chapter the poet Válmíki †, the author of the work, is represented as inquiring of the sage Nárada, "who is the bravest and best man that ever lived on the earth?" Nárada then relates briefly the history of Ráma; which Válmíki had not before heard. Soon afterwards Válmíki, walking near a river, sees a hunter shoot a

* As the northern recension of the Rámáyaṇa commenced by Schlegel is the older and purer, my references are to that as far as the end of book II. I have then referred to Gorresio's edition. The new Calcutta edition of the northern recension had not arrived at the Bodleian when I made my analysis. I have however inserted occasional references to it since, and should be inclined to add others, did I not feel convinced that this edition will never commend itself to the use of European students. Out of deference to native prejudices, it is printed to resemble a MS., and not a single word is divided—practical inconveniences, which, in my opinion, almost neutralize the advantage it possesses of a full commentary. M. Hippolyte Fauche deserves credit for his laborious translation into French of the whole edition of Gorresio; but I had not an opportunity of consulting his version, nor M. St. Hilaire's articles upon it in the 'Journal des Savants,' till I had nearly finished my own work.

+ The author of an article in the Calcutta Review (XLV), to whom I am indebted for some valuable remarks on the Rámáyana, thinks there is no doubt that Válmíki resided on the banks of the Jumná, near its confluence with the Ganges at Allahabad; and tradition has marked a hill in the district of Banda in Bundelkund, as his abode. He is said to have begun life as a highway robber, but repenting of his misdeeds, betook himself to a hermitage, on this hill, where he eventually received Sítá, the wife of Ráma, when banished by her oversensitive husband. There were born her two sons, Kuśa and Lava (sometimes combined into one compound, thus-Kusí-lavau), who were taught to sing the poem descriptive of their unknown father's actions, and from whom are traced the proudest Rajput castes. The reviewer thinks it not unlikely that Válmíki may have been contemporaneous with the heroes whom he describes; but this opinion seems to me to be based on insufficient data.