The history of drink : $b A review, social, scientific, and political — John Shaqi
The history of drink : $b A review, social, scientific, and politicalSamuelson, James
History
The history of drink : $b A review, social, scientific, and political
Samuelson, James
Drinking of alcoholic beverages -- History; Temperance -- History
The laws of Manu[71] contain a whole series of interdictions and
penalties, but the selection of two or three examples must suffice, for
some of them, although interesting as showing the depraved condition
of mankind at that early period, are not fit for transcription into
the pages of a popular work. “Any twice born (that is, regenerated)
man who has _intentionally_ drunk the spirit of rice (sura) through
perverse delusion of mind, may drink more spirit in flame and atone for
his offence by severely burning his body.” “Or he may drink boiling
hot, until he die, the urine of a cow, or pure water, or milk, or
clarified butter, or juice expressed from cow-dung.” “If he tasted it
_unknowingly_, he may expiate the sin of drinking spirituous liquor
by eating only a little broken rice or grains of tila from which oil
has been extracted, once every night for a whole year; wrapped in
coarse vesture of hairs from a cow’s tail, or sitting unclothed in his
house wearing his locks and beard uncut, and putting out the flag of a
tavern-keeper.”
There are three chief descriptions of pernicious liquor forbidden to be
drunk—one extracted from sugar dregs, another from bruised rice, and a
third from the flowers of madhuca (_Bassia latifolia_). These, along
with eight other kinds which were consumed with the flesh of animals at
certain juncates or secret feasts, were forbidden to the Brahmans, for
we are told that an intoxicated Brahman “might stumble upon something
very impure, or might even when intoxicated pronounce a sacred phrase
of the Veda, or might do some act that ought not to be done.” Even his
priestly character left him if he had been polluted with spirits, and he
sank to the low degree of a Sudra. “The slayer of a priest, a soldier,
or merchant drinking arrack, or a priest drinking arrack, mead, or rum,
he who steals the gold of a priest” (and ...) “are all to be considered
respectively as offenders of the highest degree, except those whose
crimes are not fit to be named.” Terrible punishments, such as branding
the forehead with a hot iron, were the penalties attached to those
crimes, and “with none to eat with them, with none to sacrifice with
them, with none to read with them, with none to be allied by marriage
to them; abject and excluded from all social duties, let them wander
over this earth. Branded with indelible marks, they shall be deserted by
their paternal and maternal relations, treated by none with affection,
received by none with respect. Such is the ordinance of Manu.” Nor is the
punishment, terrible as it appears, supposed to end in this world, for
the soul of a priest who has drunk spirituous liquors is consigned to the
body of a “smaller or larger worm, or insect, a moth, a fly feeding on
ordure, or some ravenous animal.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account