What will appear most valuable in this work is the description of various usages, some of which have never been described elsewhere. The most ancient customs are brought to recollection. Thus, we find stated, on the authority of Maha bharat, that widows could formerly take other husbands――married women, with the consent of their husbands, maintain intercourse with other men――several individuals, of the same race and religion, espouse one wife among them;――in ancient times there existed no such practice as appropriation of husband and wife; every woman being allowed to cohabit with whomsoever she liked; conjugal fidelity was only in later times made a duty. Much of what he describes may be seen, even in our days, in India, where all the degrees of civilisation which the Hindus ever attained, from the lowest to the highest, occur here and there within a small compass of country. So constant are they in good and bad! The whole of antiquity is still living in India, and Herodotus stands confirmed in what appeared most incredible in his narrative by the testimonies of Mohsan Fáni, the reverend abbe Dubois,[143] Ward, and others. The Persian author intersperses his account with anecdotes which characterise in the most lively manner individuals, sects, and tribes. If now and then we must avert our eyes from disgusting scenes of human degradation, more frequently we admire man, even in his errors, for the power and command of the mental over the physical part of his nature. The naked Yogi, who inflicts the most cruel tortures upon himself, wants but a better motive for being justly extolled as a hero of fortitude; death appears to him an habitual companion, into whose arms he sinks without fear; overpowered by malady, he buries himself alive. We may be astonished at the number of unbelievers among the Hindus of whom we read, and at the licentiousness of their opinions, expressed with a strength which we should think carried to excess.[144] We perceive also that, in contradiction to common belief, in the midst of the seventeenth century, when the Dabistán was composed (1645 A. D.) a numerous class of Indians assumed the name of Muselmans, but it must be remarked, that the Hindus neither endeavor to make, nor easily admit, proselytes: because their religion depends much less upon creed, in which they are latitudinarians, than upon the fixed customs of their castes, the character of which, being derived from birth, cannot be transferred to strangers.[145] We shall see hereafter in what manner Hindus and Muhammedans may be confounded with each other.