many interesting hints as to the social position occupied by Hindu women before the Muhammadan conquest. No one can read the Rāmāyaṇa and Maha-bharata without coming to the conclusion that the habit of secluding women, and of treating them as inferiors, is, to a certain extent, natural to all Eastern nations, and prevailed in the earliest times1. Yet various passages in both Epics clearly establish the fact, that women in India were subjected to

1 It was equally natural to the Greeks and Romans. Chivalry and reverence for the fair sex belonged only to European nations of northern origin, who were the first to hold 'inesse foeminis sanctum aliquid' (Tac. Germ. 8). That Hindu women in ancient times secluded themselves, except on certain occasions, may be inferred from the word asūryam-paśyā, given by Panini as an epithet of a king's wife (one who never sees the sun ')-a very strong expression, stronger even than the parda-nishin of the Muhammadans. It is to be observed also that in the Rāmāyaṇa (VI. xcix. 33) there is clear allusion to some sort of seclusion being practised; and the term avarodha, 'fenced or guarded place,' is used long before the time of the Muhammadans for the women's apartments. In the Ratnavali, however, the minister of king Vatsa, and his chamberlain and the envoy from Ceylon, are admitted to an audience in the presence of the queen and her damsels; and although Rāma in Rāmāyaṇa VI. 99 thinks it necessary to excuse himself for permitting his wife to expose herself to the gaze of the crowd, yet he expressly (99, 34) enumerates various occasions on which it was allowable for a woman to show herself unveiled. I here translate the passage, as it bears very remarkably on this interesting subject. Rāma says to Vibhishana'Neither houses, nor vestments, nor enclosing walls, nor ceremony, nor regal insignia (rāja-satkāra), are the screen (āvaraṇa) of a woman. Her own virtue alone (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 (samsatsu), it is allowable for all the world to look upon women (strīņām darśanam sārvalaukikam).’

Hence Sakuntala appears in the public court of king Dushyanta; Damayanti travels about by herself; and in the Uttara-rāma-carita, the mother of Rama goes to the hermitage of Valmiki. Again, 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 do not.

less social restraint in former days than they are at present, and even enjoyed considerable liberty'. True, the ancient lawgiver, Manu, speaks of women as having no will of their own, and unfit for independence (see p. 259 of this volume); but he probably described a state of society which it was the aim of the priesthood to establish, rather than that which really existed in his own time. At a later period the pride of Brahmanism, 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 Hindu 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 man3, and she does not mix

1 In Maha-bh. I. 4719 we read: An-āvṛitāḥ kila purā striya āsan kāma-ćāra-vihārinyaḥ svatantrāḥ, &c.

2 Hence when her husband dies she cannot be remarried, as there is no one to give her away. In fact, the remarriage of Hindū widows, which is now permitted by law, is utterly opposed to all modern Hindū ideas about women; and many persons think that the passing of this law was one cause of the mutiny of 1857. It is clear from the story of Damayanti, who appoints a second Svayamvara, that in early times remarriage was not necessarily improper; though, from her 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 such a marriage was even then not reputable.

3 See, however, the stories of Gargi and Maitreyī (Brihad-āraṇyaka Upanishad, Röer's transl. pp. 198, 203, 242). 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 the wife's divinity, as well as her lord, and her best religion was to please him. See Sita's speech, p. 366 of this volume; and the quotation from Madhava Āćārya (who flourished in the fourteenth century), p. 373, note. Such verses as the following are common in Hindu literature: Bhartā hi paramam nāryā

freely in society. But in 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 2. 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 Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābharata. Children are dutiful to their parents3 and submissive to their superiors; younger brothers are respectful 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,

bhūshaṇam bhūshaṇair vinā, ‘a husband is a wife's chief ornament even without (other) ornaments.' Manu says (V. 151), Yasmai dadyāt pitā tv enām bhrātā vānumate pituḥ, Tam suśrūsheta jīvantam samsthitam ća na lawghayet. See p. 287 of this volume. In IV. 198, Manu classes women with Sudras.

Especially married women. A wife was required to obey her husband implicitly, but in other respects she was to be independent (svātantryam arhati, Mahā-bhār. I. 4741).

2 The Svayamvara, however, appears to have been something exceptional, and only to have been allowed in the case of the daughters of kings or Kshatriyas. See Draupadi-svayamvara 127; Mahā-bhār. I. 7926.

3 Contrast with the respectful tone of Hindu 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 Hindu character now as in ancient times. It is common for unmarried soldiers to stint themselves almost to starvation-point, that they may send home money to their aged parents. In fact, in proportion to the weakness or rather total absence of the national is the strength of the family bond. In England and America, where national life is strongest, children are less respectful to their parents.

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, firm and courageous; love and harmony reign throughout the family circle. Indeed, 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, Sanskrit epic poetry is unrivalled even by Greek Epos. It is not often that Homer takes us out of the battle-field; 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 hermitboy (p. 350), the pleadings of Sītā for permission to accompany her husband into exile (p. 366), and the whole ordealscene at the end of the Rāmāyaṇa. 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 Hindu 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 Islamism, and the degrading tendency of modern Hinduism, some remarkable instances may still be found of moral and even intellectual excellence 1. These, however, are exceptions, and we may rest assured, that until Asiatic women, whether Hindu or Muslim, are elevated and educated, our efforts to raise Asiatic nations

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

to the level of European will be fruitless'. Let us hope that when the Rāmāyaṇa and Mahā-bhārata shall no longer be held sacred as repositories of faith and storehouses of trustworthy tradition, the enlightened Hindu 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 partakers of the 'fulness of the blessing' of Christianity, may do for our Eastern empire what they have done for Europe-soften, invigorate, and dignify the character of its people.

I close my present subject with examples of the religious and moral teaching of the two Indian Epics. A few sentiments and maxims, extracted from both poems, here follow:

A heavy blow, inflicted by a foe2,
Is often easier to bear, than griefs,
However slight, that happen casually.

Rāmāyaṇa (ed. Bombay) II. lxii. 16.

To carry out an enterprise in words.
Is easy, to accomplish it by acts

Is the sole test of man's capacity.

Rāmāyaṇa (ed. Gorresio) VI. lxvii. 10.

Truth, justice, and nobility of rank

Are centred in the King; he is a mother,

Father, and benefactor of his subjects.

Rāmāyaṇa (ed. Bombay) II. lxvii. 35.

In countries without monarchs, none can call

His property or family his own;

No one is master even of himself.

Rāmāyaṇa (ed. Gorresio) II. Ixix. 11.

1 Manu gives expression to a great truth when he says (III. 145), Sahasram tu pitṛīn mātā gauraveṇātiri yate, a mother exceeds in value. a thousand fathers.'

2 Though some of these translations were made years ago from Böhtlingk's admirable collection of Indische Sprüche, I have since been assisted in my renderings of many examples by Dr. Muir's 'Religious and Moral Sentiments freely translated from Indian writers,' lately printed at Edinburgh, with an appendix and notes. I may not have succeeded so well as Dr. Muir, but rhymeless metre may have enabled me to keep somewhat closer to the original.