been performed before the prince and his court. The performers were men or women according to the respective parts, and the assemblies were of a mixed character. The parts of these plays and the manner in which they were performed, furnish an interesting picture of the ancient manners of the Hindus. They show that the exclusion of females from courts, assemblies, and public entertainments, was not the practice before the Mohammedan conquest. Among the ancient Hindus, women were permitted to appear freely and openly on public occasions. They assisted in dramatic exhibitions, and composed part of the assemblies which witnessed these amusements. They formed a part in marriage festivities and bridal processions. They attended public religious ceremonies and visited the temples whenever they pleased. And such continues to be the custom in some provinces, where the Hindus have retained their liberty and their power. Exhibitions or performances of a theatrical character are now very common in which one man is the principal speaker, aided by a few assistants and some musicians. In these performances females sometimes perform parts, but such parts are more frequently performed by men or boys in the dress of

women.

No class of Asiatics ever dance for their own pleasure or amusement, but there are persons who are dancers by profession for the amusement of others.* These dancers are young women, and always supposed to be courtesans. They generally constitute a company of one, two, or three dancers with several musicians who stand behind them. All classes of people are very fond of these entertainments, and money is freely expended in supporting them. Among the rich they are often in large

* The southern Asiatics have no idea of pleasure in labor or exertion, unless in the excitement called forth by some great motive. They wonder much when they see English gentlemen and ladies appear to find pleasure in dancing. They often attend English balls as spectators, and when some of them after looking at the dancing for a while were asked what they thought of it, they replied that the English appeared to enjoy dancing, for if they did not find pleasure in it, they would not practise it, but they thought their own custom much better, namely, instead of laboring so hard and wearying and exhausting themselves by dancing, to hire persons whose professed business was dancing, and who could dance much better, and then sitting down themselves, or reclining on their couches at ease, look on and see them dance.

halls elegantly furnished with carpets, couches, mirrors, chandeliers, etc. The dress and performance of the dancers are said to be not ungraceful nor offensive to propriety or decency, but as the performers are always women of loose morals, such exhibitions cannot but have a licentious tendency. Indeed, it is said that the latter part of these entertainments is often designed and adapted to excite amorous passions and sometimes results in gross licentiousness. These amusements have an unhappy influence in promoting loose morals and in degrading the female character. The people are fond of chess,* cards, and some other games of skill. They also practise several games of chance and have various ways of gambling.

The Hindu festivals are numerous, and all are more or less religious in their character. In most of these, however, the religious part or rites occupy but a small portion of the time. The people on such occasions generally omit all labor, and putting on their best clothes ride out in carriages or walk about where the principal objects of attraction are:- to see curiosities and jugglers,† to procure fruits and sweetmeats, to reciprocate civilities and inquiries with friends, etc. In some instances, as on the Mohurrum, the chief festival of the Mohammedans in India, the people form long processions and proceed in order through the principal streets preceded by bands of music and carrying

* The invention of this celebrated game has been ascribed to the Hebrews, the Babylonians, and the Persians. But Sir W. Jones in his Dissertation "On the Indian Game of Chess," ascribes it to the Hindus.

† Jugglery has been practised in India from very remote antiquity, perhaps as early as it was in Egypt. The jugglers travel about over the country in companies, and exhibit their feats and arts in the private grounds of the wealthy, and in the public and open places of towns and cities, trusting to the generosity of spectators for compensation. They generally have snakes of poisonous or uncommon kinds, which are exhibited in various ways. Some of these snakes will raise their heads and move them slowly to the sound of a pipe, played by one of the company. They handle these snakes, even the most venomous kind, without fear or injury. It is said and doubtless truly, that the poisonous fangs have been extracted. This however does not always secure impunity, as such fangs in young snakes will sometimes grow again and inflict mortal wounds. These jugglers are remarkably expert in their feats of strength and agility, and in their tricks of deception. They are an ignorant and despised caste of people, and the general opinion of the other castes is that they worship evil spirits, and have the assistance of such beings in performing their feats and tricks.

banners, or something which represents the origin and occasion of the festival. There is very little intemperance on such days and rarely any rows or quarrels, or accidents or injuries.

The higher classes are very attentive to all the customs and usages of official and social intercourse, and great importance is given to such matters. At the durbars or levees of princes, the rank of every person who attends, is carefully determined, and each is seated according to his rank. The prince (raja, or emperor, or whatever he may be,) takes the seat assigned and prepared for him, which is the most conspicuous place. All pay their respects to him in succession, each presenting a gift called a nuzzur, for which he receives something, generally a dress, in return. The nuzzur generally consists of money, but may be of jewels, or some rare and curious article. People of rank are courteous and polite to all classes, and expect from others what they so freely give. Such is also the conduct and character of the lower classes. Indeed, there is more dignity, ease, and grace of manners, and a more careful observance · of the civilities, rules, proprieties, and usages of official and social intercourse among all ranks and classes of people in India, than among the corresponding classes in Europe and America.

But it must be acknowledged that the Hindus are a very deceitful people, and often while apparently so civil, so kind, and benevolent, are in heart and in purpose, the very reverse of what they appear to be. They have great power of dissimulation and hypocrisy. Their language abounds in compliment, flattery, and assurances of good-will, which often deceive Europeans, though not each other, for among themselves all appear at once to understand just how much and how little such language and assurances mean, and what reliance can be put upon them. The Hindus are very discriminating judges of character, and are seldom deceived by Europeans, or by one another.

Perjury is fearfully common in the courts of justice. It is a frequent saying and a general opinion that men enough can be hired for a small sum to swear to their knowledge of things of which they know nothing, and to the truth of things which they know to be false. English magistrates of great experience in public business, have often declared that they could place but

little reliance upon native testimony, especially upon that of the Hindus, unless it was corroborated by separate facts, and concurring circumstances. The native character appears to be equally depraved in respect to bribery. In the Hindu and Mohammedan governments, men holding official situations generally depended upon fees, bribes, and exactions, for compensation. Salaries were almost nominal, and yet government functionaries of all classes managed to accumulate large fortunes. Bribery and extortion in such governments were common, and the effects were very demoralizing and distressing. And bribery, notwithstanding all that can be done to prevent it, is yet not uncommon among the natives holding official situations under the English government. The Hindu sacred books justify falsehood, and even inculcate deceit in many specified cases. And such a code of morality, and the licentious character and immoral conduct of their gods, the objects of their worship and adoration, leave us little reason to expect much improvement in regard to telling the truth, till they have a purer code of morals, and begin to worship the Deity, whose actions are righteous, and whose attributes are holy.

BUDHISM.

Budhism has been mentioned as a form or system of religion which existed in India at an early period. The origin of this religion is involved in much obscurity. Some orientalists have been of the opinion that it preceded brahminism. But the more general opinion has been that it originated in some efforts to reform some of the brahminical doctrines, and became after a while a rival system. It was once the religion of some kingdoms in the valley of the Ganges, but after long struggles, it was expelled from all continental India, except Nepaul, where it is still the religion of the country, though in some places it is much mixed with brahminical superstitions. It is also the religion of the southern part of Ceylon, and of the countries east from India, as Burma, Siam, and China.

Budhism has differed much in its doctrines at different times,

and also at the same time, as these have been set forth by its different professors. It is in vain to expect much truth, or reason, or consistency in such systems as Budhism and Brahminism, which were not only rival and conflicting systems, but the professors and followers of each could not agree upon its doctrines among themselves. It is enough to show the different doctrines, so far as these can now be ascertained, which were believed and professed among them.

The most ancient doctrines of Budhism appear to have been atheistical, holding that the material universe is eternal, and that all the changes which take place, are only the effect of the inherent and essential properties and qualities of matter. They professed to believe that the power of originating organization, and then of producing in these organized forms all the phenomena they exhibit, is inherent in matter, or nature as they call it, and that the agency which organized forms have in producing other forms, is the result of their inherent power, and requires no external aid or agent. To this supposed inherent and essential power of matter, they ascribe the origin and perpetuation of the human race and all other beings, as well as the changes which take place in inanimate and inorganic matter.

Some of the early Budhists appear to have believed in an infinite and self-existent Being, who created the material universe, or reduced its chaotic materials to form, and having communicated to them, or endowed them with all the various properties they now possess, again assumed a state of repose and unconcern about his works, and that the material universe by the operation and force of its communicated and now inherent power, continues and produces and exhibits all the endlessly diversified forms of existence and changes of matter, which compose the apparent world of life, action, and motion.

Of these pretended philosophers, one class believe in no Creator or Governor of the universe, and so are properly called atheists. The other class profess to believe in an eternal and selfexistent Deity, who created the universe, or reduced it to its present state and order, but who has since exerted no agency in it, or superintendence over it. They appear to be of the opinion that the inherent powers of matter, or nature as they call it, in certain peculiarly combined organizations, produces conscious