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:—