former that Dubois speaks, when he says that the Brahman is too timid and cowardly to have resort to violence even by way of revenge.1 The career of the Mahrattas or Pindharees shows, however, that the natives of the south are capable of any atrocities for the sake of plunder. Nevertheless, those Mahrattas who do not follow the profession of arms, are said to be a remarkably moral, kind, humane, and hospitable race, their chief fault being a disregard for truth in their dealings with strangers. 3 What the generality of Hindus want in the open appropriation of the property of others, they too often make up in the practice of deceit. They are extremely prone to lying and deception, and appear to think that it is hardly possible to transact business without recourse to falsehood. Ward says also that they are very litigious, and "in defence of a cause in a court of justice, will swear falsely in the most shocking manner, so that a judge never knows when he may safely believe evidences." Bishop Heber remarks that perjury is dreadfully common and very little thought of. In the Furreedpoor district the defence set up in nine cases out of ten was an alibi, "being the easiest of all others to obtain by the aid of false witness." 5 Elsewhere he says that "a lie is not disgraceful, and if an offence, a very venial one. The same testimony is borne by Dubois as to the southern Hindus, among whose special characteristics suspicion and duplicity take the first rank, those qualities being "very prominent wherever their interest is in any degree committed ;”7 and the same writer remarks that the Brahmans surpass 1 op. cit., p. 196. "6 2 See Duff's "History of the Maharattas,” vol. iii. p. 328 seq. op. cit., vol. iii. p. 289. 6 Do., vol. ii. p. 458. 7 op. cit., p. 189. all other castes in the art of lying.1 The distrust which Dubois noted is also characteristic of the natives of Hindostan who, according to Heber, cannot trust each other even in the watching of the cornfields against depredation by birds.2 Ward affirms that the treachery of the Hindus to each other is so great "that it is not uncommon for persons to live together, for the greatest length of time, without the least confidence in each other, and, where the greatest union apparently exists, it is dissolved by the slightest collision.” 3 We have here one of the most serious defects in the Hindu character. Parents are extremely attached to their children, and they are thus led to indulge them in everything, never correcting their faults.* On the other hand children have no reverence for their parents. According to the testimony of Dubois, not only do they use abusive language to and even strike their mothers, but when grown up they cease to regard their father with respect. The latter is generally "reduced to an absolute submission to the will of his son, who becomes master of him and his house." 5 It should be added, however, that among the southern Hindus, at least, when sons have thus acquired absolute authority in the household, they treat their parents and relations well, and do not suffer them to want in their old age. Real affection between brothers and sisters appears to be as rare as that between parents and children. What little there is almost entirely disappears on marriage, after which event brothers and sisters seldom meet, unless it be to quarrel. Greater harmony would seem to subsist 1 Do., p. 177. 3 op. cit., vol. iii. p. 292. 2 op. cit., vol. i. p. 269. The Hindus are always much more gentle with children than with women. See Heber, op. cit., vol. ii. p. 71. 5 op. cit., p. 190; see also Ward, op. cit., vol. iii. p. 288 6 Dubois, op. cit., p. 21. after marriage between brothers, than between brothers and sisters, the former continuing to reside together with their wives and children, under the parental roof, until the death of their parents, and it is not uncommon for large families thus to live together for years.1 There has been considerable dispute as to the character of the Hindus, or at least of the women, in their sexual relations. It would not be surprising if they were as licentious as they have been described by some writers, considering the examples continually before them. Dubois declares that the greater part of the institutions, both civil and religious, of the Hindus, "appear to be contrived for the purpose of nourishing and stimulating that passion to which nature of itself is so exceedingly prone. The stories of the dissolute life of their gods; the solemn festivals so often celebrated, from which decency and modesty are wholly excluded; the abominable allusions which many of their daily practices always recal; their public and private monuments, on which nothing is ever represented but the most wanton obscenities; their religious rites, in which prostitutes act the principal parts; all these causes, and others that might be named, necessarily introduce among the Hindus the utmost dissoluteness of manners.” 2 The experience of other Eastern peoples is proof, however, that where habit has sanctified the usage, the most indecent scenes may be continually viewed without actually inducing licentious conduct. Such would seem to be the case with the Hindu women, who, on the testimony of Dubois himself,3 we must believe to be not so licentious 2 1 Bevan, op. cit., vol. i., p. 339. op. cit., p. 191. As to religious prostitution, by the "slaves of the gods" and others, see do., p. 401 seq. 3 Do., as Ward1 and other writers have depicted them, although, owing to the peculiarity of Hindu institutions, they may not always be so chaste as they would be under more favourable circumstances. The testimony of the Institutes of Menu and of the Gentoo code is certainly not favourable to the morality of Hindu women. Probably something must be ascribed to the influence of climate and other circumstances, and from the statements of Mr Wilson it would appear that the women of Hindostan proper are less inclined to morality than those of Bengal and the South.2 4 The dissoluteness of manners, referred to by Dubois, is that of man rather than woman, and it appears to be great. The custom of the Hindus limits a man to one wife, except with men of high rank, or privileged classes,3 or where the first wife, after long cohabitation, does not bear children. Should a man live with several women, the children of one of them alone is legitimate, the others not being allowed to inherit any portion of their father's property. Nevertheless, it is very usual for a man, unknown to his wife if possible, to keep one or more concubines.5 Even the Sannyasis, or Gurus, who profess to lead a life of celibacy, are publicly known to have concubines. No virtue, says Dubois, is less familiar to them than chastity, and they commit breaches of that virtue "which would disgrace the most profane.' This is explained by the fact that a connection with unmarried women is not considered an offence by the Brahmans, unless the woman is of a superior caste, in which case the man is to be put to death." 1 op. cit., vol. iii. pp. 82, 157. 2. "6 History of British India," by James Mill, vol. i. p. 426. Dubois affirms, however, that girls are little capable of resisting the solicitations of a seducer, op. cit., p. 134. 3 The Institutes of Menu allow several wives to Brahmans. 4 Dubois, op. cit., p. 135 seq. 5 Do., p. 191. 7 Halhed's "Gentoo Code," p. 276: 6 Do., p. 133. Considering the position occupied by a wife in her husband's household, it is not surprising that but little affection is displayed in the relations of married life. Having been purchased, the wife is considered by her husband, in some sense, as a slave. Ward affirms that 2 females are reduced to a state of complete servitude; and so far from being companions to their husbands, a man never converses with his wife during the day, nor is she permitted to eat with him, or to sit in company even of near friends.1 Bishop Heber also says, as to the sex generally, that all through India the roughest words, the poorest garments, the scantiest alms, the most degraded labour, and the hardest blows, are usually their lot. It is possible that there is a certain amount of unintentional exaggeration in these statements, and that the inferior position of woman among the Hindus is not in reality so pronounced as an outsider would suppose. To understand this question aright, it is necessary to consider the ideas entertained by that people as to the relation between the sexes. Dubois remarks, "it is an established natural rule that women are designed for no other end than to be subservient to the wants and pleasures of the males." At another page, he says that the Hindus are brought up in the belief that there can be nothing uninterested or innocent in the intercourse between the sexes. Hence external propriety of behaviour is considered imperative, and a man who should talk in a familiar way, even with his wife, would be considered vulgar and ridiculous.* In public, the husband treats his wife with apparent contempt and roughness. It is true that Dubois declares this manner to be merely ceremonial, and that in private it entirely |