The Burmese never dance themselves, but hire dancers, who make extraordinary efforts in their dancing. No figures are attempted, nor do women and men dance together; indeed, very few females dance at all; the men generally assuming the dress of women, and tying their hair in the manner of women. They cannot understand what the English dance for; they, in common with all Indians, wonder at it. The musical instruments are the _moung_ or _gong_, struck with a mallet covered with leather; the _panma-gyee_, or large drum; the _tseing_ or _boundaw_, is a collection of small drums, disposed within a frame in a circle. The size varies in every case. The player sits in the middle, and strikes them with his fingers. The _me-goum_ or _me-kyong_, is a kind of guitar, played with the fingers. The _sonng_ is a kind of harp. They have also a kind of violin, called _te-yau_, very disagreeable, with only two strings. The _kyay-wyng_ is formed by a number of gongs, of different sizes, struck with small sticks, very pleasant of sound. There are also two or three kinds of wind-instruments, but very inferior in tone. Malcom[187] remarks it as a curious fact, that the Burmese are totally ignorant of whistling. In making fireworks, the Burmese display great ingenuity, and their delight is immense at a well-made rocket. Sangermano tells us,[188] that “when the great rockets are let off, if these fireworks ascend straight up into the air without bursting or running obliquely, the makers of them burst out into the wildest shouts and songs, and dance about with the most extravagant contortions, like real madmen.” We will leave them shouting, and turn to the ancient history of the country. CHAPTER VI. Ancient history—Pegue—Character of the Burmese—Concluding reflections. The ancient history of Burmah differs in one remarkable particular from that of almost every other Oriental nation. The historiographers, except where they have been led into speaking of Gaudama and his wondrous career, in effect, present a more coherent chronology than is offered by any other Eastern historians. The simple, almost ungarnished tale of their doings in the country, present self-evident proofs of its truthfulness. The reigns of the kings none of them exceed the limits of probability, and what is more, they are shorter than usual, which shows in every way that there was no desire to magnify the doings of their sovereigns. We find the kings of this early period doing just what the kings of the present dynasty have been doing, and there is no undue disguise of facts; though now and then (as in the narrative of the two blind princes of Sagaing) there is a dash of the marvellous; yet one cannot help wondering at the extraordinary simplicity that pervades the whole narrative given by the Burmese historians.