CHAPTER IV.

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.