THE ZEND-AVESTA AND THE FOLLOWERS OF ZOROASTER—THE MODERN
PERSIANS—MOHAMMEDAN LAW CONCERNING DRINK AND DRINKING PRACTICES—THE
PARSEES OF INDIA.
Although the social history of the branch of the Aryan family, which at
a very early period spread itself over Persia and other parts of Asia,
presents many features in common with that of the races described in our
last chapter, yet we are bound to devote a few pages to the consideration
of the followers of Zoroaster, partly to compare them with their modern
descendants, and also in order that we may deal with the Mohammedan
reform of drunkenness. This is the less to be regretted, as the close
resemblance, in many respects, between the religious ceremonies of the
two races is a guarantee of the accuracy with which both have been
described in the ancient records. The literature of the Zoroastrian epoch
is believed by some historians to extend back as far as 2800 B.C., but
the period when the great master himself flourished is purely mythical.
Like many of the ancient religious records, it is held by modern scholars
to have grown gradually into a series of books, which assumed a definite
form about 1000 years B.C. These sacred books—the Yaçna, the Vispered,
and the Vendidad, collectively known as the Zend-Avesta—contain a great
deal that serves to enlighten us concerning the habits of the people for
whose moral and religious guidance they were compiled. The chief facts
may be gathered from the directions given for the performance of the
sacrifices, more especially that of “homa” or “haoma,” the “soma” of
the Brahmans.[79] At that rite an intoxicating liquor was used that was
prepared from a plant, concerning which we only know that it had yellow
blossoms, and that the drink was called “parahaoma.” A similar drink
to parahaoma, we are told, is taken in small quantities by the Parsee
priests at the present day during their religious ceremonies.[80] Thus
it will be seen that in two important particulars the Brahminical and
Zoroastrian rites were almost identical; and as “soma” in Sanskrit was
“homa” in Zend, so the other intoxicating drink of the Vedas, namely,
“sura,” is changed to “hura” in Zend; and we find in one place that
a penance is enjoined upon sinners, namely, “to feed eighteen pure,”
_i.e._, religious men, with meat and hura or wine.[81] And finally,
the Hotar or high priest of the Brahmans was Zaŏtar amongst the Zend
worshippers. But that leads us to a most important difference between
the two religions; for whilst intoxication seems to have been a cardinal
feature in the ceremonies of the Brahmans, the Zoroastrians, although
they permitted, and even prescribed, the use of inebriating drink in
theirs, strictly forbade the practice of drunkenness. Indeed, it was
considered to be the work of Agromanyus or Angrô-Mainyus (Ahriman), the
power hostile to Ahura-Mazda or Ahuro-Mazdâo (Ormuzd), the almighty god
of the Zoroastrians; and even to simulate intoxication was regarded as
sinful.
But neither of the two liquors, homa and sura, seems to have been
employed by the lower classes in the sense in which it is used by the
populace to-day. A third and very deleterious drink called “banga”
is mentioned in the Zend-Avesta. It is there personified as a bad
spirit, and is named in conjunction with two others as the demon of
intoxication.[82] Like the modern bang, referred to in our account
of India, it is believed to have been extracted from the hemp plant
(_Cannabis sativa_); and it may be interesting to mention that the same
substance, somewhat modified in each case, is used in Turkey under the
name of “hadschy,” in Arabia as “hashish,” and by the Hottentots as
“dacha,” producing in all instances an intoxicating effect.
Whatever may have been the means employed in the earliest times, there
is no doubt that, notwithstanding the prohibitions and denunciations
of their religion, the ancient Persians were much addicted to
intoxication.[83] Of that we have evidence in the pages of Herodotus the
Greek historian,[84] who says that they were in the habit of discussing
most public affairs of importance under the influence of wine, and
that the landlord of the house where they met kept a record of their
decisions, which he submitted for their approval on the following day. If
these still met with their approbation, they were adopted and carried
into effect. _Per contra_, if they came to any resolution whilst they
were sober, it was reconsidered and approved or disapproved under the
influence of drink.[85]
The same historian also tells us that Cyrus gave a feast to the Persians
in which he provided rich wines;[86] and the following story is narrated
concerning that monarch, showing the excess to which drinking was carried
in his day.[87] Cyrus made war upon Tomyris, queen of the Massagetæ, a
race living in Central Asia, and by the advice of Cræsus the Lydian, he
made a feint of deserting his camp, and left “flowing goblets of wine” to
tempt the enemy to excess. The stratagem succeeded, and when the enemy
was drunk, he attacked him and took the queen’s son prisoner. Cyrus was,
however, ultimately defeated and slain.
The drink here referred to was made from the vine, but Herodotus also
mentions an incident which shows that palm-wine was drunk in the time
of Cambyses (B.C. 529-522). “He (Cambyses) sent the Ichthyophagæ into
Ethiopia with the following gifts, to wit, a purple robe, a gold
chain for the neck, armlets, an alabaster box of myrrh, and a cask of
palm-wine.” The king of the Ethiops was greatly delighted with those
gifts, and “last of all he came to the palm-wine, and having learned
their way of making it, he drank a draught, which greatly delighted
him.”[88]
Down to the time of the Saracen conquest of Persia in the first century
of the Hegira (A.D. 621), we have no reason to believe that any serious
attempt was made to suppress drunkenness, but by the Mohammedans the use
of intoxicating drink was at least nominally forbidden. The interdiction
is found in the fifth chapter of the Koran, and runs as follows:—“O
true believers, surely wine, and lots, and images, and divining arrows,
are an abomination of the work of Satan; therefore avoid them that ye
may prosper. Satan seeketh to sow dissension and hatred amongst you
by means of wine and lots, and to divert you from remembering God and
from prayer; will ye not therefore abstain from them?”[89] But the same
sacred volume of the Mohammedans also contains at least one if not more
phrases which would seem to justify as legitimate the use of intoxicating
drinks in moderation. In the sixteenth chapter, amongst God’s gifts
we find, “And of the fruits of palm trees and of grapes ye obtain an
inebriating liquor, and also good nourishment.”[90] Notwithstanding the
argumentative aspect of the question, however, Mussulmans themselves
regard wine and other intoxicating liquors as unlawful, and a very large
proportion of the faith, wherever they are found, really abstain from
their use. That the abstinence is, however, far from universal, we find
not only in considering the habits of those who reside in Persia, but
also in Turks, Arabians, and Egyptians.[91] That drunkenness was not
suppressed in Persia is evident from the various stories narrated to
and by travellers, the debauchery of successive rulers, and the known
consumption of large quantities of wine there in modern times. Morewood
describes with great minuteness the Persian mode of making wine from
the grape, and a kind of brandy which has long been distilled from the
lees and weaker kinds of wine. Several descriptions of wine are named by
him, of which Shiraz is the most highly esteemed; and quoting Tavernier,
a traveller in Persia, he says that in his time 4125 tuns of that wine
alone were made annually.[92] Later writers confirm these statements, and
Klemm, one of the ablest German sociologists, says that in Tavernier’s
time a drink called, “bengueh,” prepared from herbs and fortified with
hempseeds, was largely drunk. This liquor is evidently the “banga” of
the Zoroastrians; and Klemm states that in the royal library at Dresden
there is a valuable illuminated Persian MS. relating to its preparation
and use. He also says that in the present day, in some houses in Persia,
a kind of brandy called “kokemaar” is given to guests, and that it is
prepared from the kernels of fruits, and is intoxicating in the highest
degree.[93]
Fraser says of the Mohammedans of Persia that in private they often
solace themselves with copious libations from the wine-cup; that “in
truth many of the Persians are great topers in spite of the prohibition
of their Prophet; and when they betake themselves to this kind of
pastime, they seldom stop short of absolute intoxication.... They see no
disgrace in drunkenness, and envy Christians the supposed privilege of
getting tipsy when they choose, without check or reproach.”[94] A still
more recent traveller and author has published a graphic account of life
in Persia which fully confirms these statements. Arthur Arnold says, “I
have never seen people drink ardent spirits in such large quantities
as some Mohammedans of station whom I met in travel. A Moslem prince
lately asked me why I drank wine. ‘It does not make you drunk. _I_ take
arrack,’ he added. English doctors in the East are frequently summoned
to cases of _delirium tremens_.... The rich Moslem drinks privately, the
non-Mussulman publicly. The Moslem drinks at night, the non-Mussulman at
all times.”[95] Perhaps a majority of Mohammedans, he says, would refuse
to drink intoxicating liquors, but taking a large body of servants, very
few will regard the Koran as our Good Templars. Amongst the wandering
tribes he found the prohibition quite unheeded, and the remarks which he
makes concerning their customs, without any special intention to treat of
their drinking habits, afford the best evidence of their intemperance.
In one place,[96] describing a native dinner-party, he says, “A servant
walked round the room carrying a large bottle of arrack in one hand and
wine in the other. The Khan took half a tumbler of the fiery spirit,
and drank it off without winking; most of the guests preferred arrack.”
Elsewhere he says, “The arrack and wine circulated.” He describes amongst
the towns which he visited one he calls a temperance city.[97] “In Koom
we found it impossible to refill our empty wine bottles. Something
stronger than the Maine Liquor Law prevails in this sacred city, and
in that of Meshed, where the brother of Fatima is buried. Intoxicating
liquors appear absolutely unattainable, and intoxication is accomplished
by those who desire that condition by bhang or opium.”
Mr. Arnold is one of those who consider that the Koran does not
absolutely prohibit the use of stimulants, but only excess. He, however,
seems to acknowledge that practically they are forbidden to Mussulmans.
The reflection which naturally occurs to one who reads this account of
the ancient and modern Persians, the Zoroastrians of old, and the modern
Mohammedans who succeeded them, is that the mere prohibition of the
use of intoxicating drinks, even if it has the sanction of religion,
is not of itself sufficient to mould a people into sobriety. Where
there is wealth without intelligence and education, and the passions
are strong, as amongst the higher classes in the East, and in the West
too, for that matter, “not even the sages,” as the old Chinese writer
has it, “will prevent men from indulging in strong drink.” Hence the
Mohammedans in Persia and elsewhere, although their religion strictly
forbids its use, and although, as Mr. Arnold says, the majority may even
be abstainers, cannot safely be set down as a race confirmed in habits of
temperance. But, strictly speaking, we should not here have treated of
the Mohammedans, who are not the descendants of the ancient Zoroastrians,
and we must close this chapter with a brief reference to the existing
community which lays claim to that title—the Parsees of India. Their
head-quarters are notably in Bombay, and they are a small, enlightened,
and comparatively wealthy community, comprising in all not over 105,500
souls,[98] or, according to their historian and champion, Dosabhoy
Framjee, somewhat over 110,000.[99] The last-named writer has a high
opinion of the sobriety of his co-religionists, and says that although
“wines are then (at supper) consumed in large quantities by those who can
afford them, it is a fact creditable to the Parsees generally that they
drink no intoxicating liquors during the day.” But Mr. Arnold has told
us of the Mohammedans that they, too, drink at night only, and we know a
few Englishmen who do the same, and yet cannot be called sober; so that
is no sure guide. We are, however, quite prepared to receive the author’s
statement in perfect good faith, for it is notorious that they are a
community standing in very high moral repute, in which they resemble
the modern Jews, Quakers, and Unitarians. This is attributable to their
small numbers, comparative isolation, and to the almost entire absence of
pauperism in their body. Mr. Framjee, however, gives us some statistics
of which he does not appear to have noticed the significance. He took the
trouble to analyse the census of Bombay shortly before 1858, and he gives
us an account of the various occupations followed by his co-religionists.
Amongst them he names the following, it being understood that the numbers
include the wives and families of the workers:—
417 Bakers and confectioners.
5,468 Domestic servants.
61,298 Bankers, brokers, and merchants.
5,656 Priests.
11,028 Writers and accountants, about one-half of whom are in
Government employ.
127 Vagrants.
826 _Tavern-keepers_.
5,227 _Liquor sellers_, distillers, and palm-wine drawers.
The small number of vagrants shows, as already stated, that there is
comparatively little poverty in the community; but what of the 417 bakers
as against 6053 purveyors of drink? “Oh monstrous! but one halfpenny
worth of bread to this intolerable deal of sack!”
If we are to judge from these statistics, the Parsees would appear to be
amongst the wealthiest, the most enlightened, and religious members of
Indian society, and if they would only be as considerate towards their
neighbours in other religious communities in the matter of drink as they
are cautious in their own, they might be reckoned the salt of the earth.
No doubt we shall be reminded by some intelligent Parsee that there is no
need for us to go abroad in search of illustrations for such a doctrine,
and that even the titles of honour which have been conferred upon members
of his community in India for services rendered to the cause of morality,
are also lavished upon “liquor sellers” and “tavern-keepers” at home.
That is unfortunately so; but it is still worthy of consideration with
the descendants of an ancient race, themselves highly esteemed and
honoured for their intelligence and for their many virtues, whether
they could not do something towards removing this great blot from their
escutcheon.