05. State Punishments and Rewards
State Punishments and Rewards
Chapter IV
Execution
Whatever sentence is pronounced by the king of Persia, whether of the bastinado, of mutilation, or of death, is inflicted on the spot in his presence. This is a shocking practice, revolting to our ideas and habits, but perfectly in accordance with ancient and modern oriental nations; and, doubtless, it forms part of that education which soon renders the best of eastern kings revoltingly indifferent to human life and suffering. Futteh Ali Shah, who was naturally a very humane man, when he first came to the throne found himself obliged to turn his head aside when an execution took place. But this is regarded by the Persians, not only as unkingly, but as unmanly, and the king, by use, soon learned to look calmly on.
Sir Harford Jones reports a remark which was made to him on this subject by Meerza Bozurg, a Persian high in office. He said, “Our kings, speaking generally, are more careless about shedding blood than they otherwise would be, perhaps from the circumstance of the frequent executions that take place before them; for, depend upon it, the first sight of human blood strikes all of us with more or less horror and remorse, but the oftener we see it shed, the lighter we esteem its value.” A similar course to the one just described seems to have been that of Israel in the marked instances of Adonijah and Joab, who were condemned in their absence; the executioner was, indeed, sent to destroy them, but those who are condemned when present are slain on the spot. Thus Zebah and Zalmunna were slain, not only in the presence of Gideon, but by his own hand, when his eldest son hesitated to execute the doom, Judges 8:21. Ahimelech and the priests of Nob were slain in the presence of Saul by Doeg, 1 Samuel 22:17-18; and Agag was hewn in pieces in the presence of Samuel and Saul, 1 Samuel 15:33.
Solomon, in describing the king’s wrath as “messengers of death,” Proverbs 16:14, is thought to allude to such executions of the sentence of death as his own reign afforded signal examples of in the case of Adonijah and Joab—a message prompt and irresistible, and to which the condemned himself usually submits as they did. Such a messenger of death was sent by king Jehorum to take the head of Elisha; and it has been well remarked, that the fact of the king sending a single messenger to execute his sentence upon a person so eminent and honored as that prophet, and surrounded as he was likely to be, and actually was, with many friends and scholars, indicates that such mandates were but too common among the Jews, and were generally submitted to without resistance. In this case, the king followed his own messenger in swift haste, probably to countermand the order he had given; and it was, doubtless, the knowledge of this which induced Elisha to go so far in resistance as to direct his friends to detain the messenger at the door, and not allow him to enter his presence till the king himself arrived. It is very possible that they would not have ventured upon this step, but for the implied assurance that they were executing the later purpose of the king, by staying his messenger. The existing practice in Persia in this matter may also show why the messenger was detained at the door, and not admitted to the presence of his intended victim. In such instances in Persia some formalities are necessary, that those whom it may concern may be satisfied that the messenger of death is really commissioned by the king. Everything depends on that; for if the messenger could not produce an unimpeachable warrant, obedience to it might be evaded on the ground of a real or pretended doubt; and private vengeance might be wreaked under the cover of a commission from the king, if care were not taken that it were properly authenticated. The seal of the king is, therefore, attached to the warrant, to which that of his prime-minister is added, and it is then given to one of the royal body-guard, who instantly sets out, and travels post without intermission till he reaches his destination. In like manner, the fatal letters respecting the Jews, which, under the authority of the ancient Persian king, were sent into the provinces of the empire, “were sealed with the king’s ring,” Esther 3:12-14, and sent by messengers traveling post, and, it is added, “the posts went out, being hastened by the king’s commandment;” and also, in like manner, the message sent by Jezebel to compass the death of Naboth was authenticated by the king’s signet, and addressed to the elders and nobles of the city in which that person lived, 1 Kings 21:8. The messenger charged to execute the royal order, having arrived at the place where his victim lives, proceeds at once either to the king’s lieutenant, the secretary, or the chief magistrate, as he judges best. To this person he discloses his commission, shows him his warrant, and permits him to satisfy himself of its correctness. He then requires this functionary to go with him, and sanction the execution by his presence; and this he cannot refuse to do, even though the condemned man may be the friend of his right hand. On reaching the place, the messenger dismounts and enters the house, booted and travel-stained, which would be grossly indecorous in ordinary circumstances. He goes direct to the room where the condemned man is to be found, and, as he enters, takes his commission from his bosom, and deposits it in the hands of the officer he has brought with him. He then draws his saber, and with the terrible words “in the king’s name,” he throws himself upon his victim, and speedily departs with his head, leaving the lifeless trunk on the divan. The privacy of the harem is, on such critical occasions, respected. Even the messenger of death, armed with the king’s commission, presumes not to penetrate there. If the condemned man has retired to that part of the house, word is sent that a messenger has arrived from court, and he is then bound to come forth, and always does so, and is treated as already described. There is no possibility of escape when the messenger has once arrived, and made his commission known. Any resistance or attempt at evasion would be as futile, and would excite as much amazement, as if a grandee in Europe, condemned to the block, should attempt to defend himself upon the scaffold. The soul of the offender is paralyzed by the suddenness with which his fate comes upon him, and if in the brief interval, the moment between doom and death, he is collected enough to cast a glance towards the friends who may be sitting with him, and who certainly might, if they dared, effectually protect him, he sees no hope in their eyes. The wrath of the king is so terrible, that the man subject to it is at once divested of his merits, his influence, and his honor. His best friends, even those of his household, are either awed into insensibility by the event, or look on with eyes suddenly become cold and cruel towards a man whom a king’s anger has blasted and rendered worthless. There is not one of them who would not be far more likely, if called upon, to aid than to resist the execution of the royal mandate. His only chance is, that some friend at court may have contrived to apprize him of his danger; and, in that case, if he choose to risk the consequences in order to gain time, he places people in ambush to arrest and detain the courier, or to render him powerless by taking his commission from him. But, from the secrecy and expedition with which the orders of death are given and executed, it seldom happens that friends learn anything of them in time to convey an intimation to him; moreover, if the man is known to have reason to suspect that he has incurred the royal displeasure, great pains are taken and much contrivance exerted to lull his mind into security and take him off his guard. It is no uncommon thing, for the present of a royal robe to be sent him some eight days before that intended for his doom, which in his own eyes, and in that of all others, is the highest mark of favorable regard which the king himself can bestow.
Most of our readers will remember the conclusion which Haman formed, “that there was evil determined against him by the king,” Esther 7:7, when the monarch rose hastily from the banquet of wine, and went out into the garden. At the present time, when the sovereign, in connection with the affairs of any great person, rises angrily and withdraws into the harem, it is a sure indication of determined evil, even if no sentence has been passed; and if sentence has been pronounced, it is a sign that there is no hope of moving the royal hand to mercy. Chardin relates, that when the shah Sefi felt offended at some unbecoming sarcasm which one of his favorites ventured to utter in his presence, he immediately rose and retired. Upon this, the courtier, seeing that he was a doomed man, went home in confusion, and, in a few hours afterwards, the king sent a “messenger of death” for his head.
Beheading
It may be remarked, that the king of Persia, as well as most other eastern monarchs, requires the head of a person who has been executed upon his sentence, out of his presence, to be brought to him, which, probably, originated in the determination to prevent any imposition, by enabling him actually to see that the doomed person, and no other instead of him, had been really put to death. Thus, as Herodias desired not merely that John the Baptist should be slain, but that his head should be brought to her; so Jehu had the heads of the members of Ahab’s family brought to him in baskets from Samaria, and piled up in heaps at the palace gate in Jezreel. David, also, takes off the head of the slain champion of the Philistines, and carries it in his hand to king Saul; and, in the Apocryphal story of Judith, which may be cited in illustration of usages, Judith, after having slain Holofernes, takes off his head, and carries it away in her bag, that her countrymen may, by that unmistakable evidence, be satisfied that their redoubted enemy is, indeed, no more, Jdt 13:10. These circumstances show that the prevalent eastern usages respecting decapitation were familiar also in Biblical times, although the peculiar ideas which the Jews owed to the law of Moses, respecting the ceremonial pollution contracted by contact with the dead, and the regulation that no human remains should be publicly exposed after sundown, must have prevented among them those ghastly displays of festering heads, which disgust and horrify a traveler in the east, and which, it must be confessed, have only in recent times ceased in our own country. In the case of a distant execution, such as we have lately described, the necessity of taking the head back with him, to show that he has executed his commission, might be supposed to occasion some trouble to the messenger of death. But it is not so. The head is carefully pickled, and being neatly done up in a small bundle, the man carries it behind him on his saddle during his rapid journey home. In Persia it is not unusual, in time of war, for the king or prince in command to offer a reward, sometimes as high as five pounds, for every head of the enemy brought to him, and instances are on record of kings sitting in state to receive the heads, piled around in heaps by thousands, and supervise the distribution of the reward. Under such a system, the soldiers will take care not to encumber themselves with prisoners, unless a higher prize is offered for a live enemy than for the head of a dead one. The heads thus accumulated are disposed in symmetrical heaps, as were those, doubtless, at the palace gate of Jezreel. It has been known that rebellious cities or provinces have been decimated by the exaction, after defeat or submission, of a pyramid of heads of given dimensions; and the dreadful indifference to human feelings which one has always to witness in despotic countries, is savagely manifested by the care of the executioners to reserve the most remarkable or picturesque head to crown the barbarous monument.
Eyes Removed
Under the same circumstances, instead of a pyramid of heads, a certain measure of eyes is exacted from a rebellious town, and the savage ferocity with which the royal officers scooped out the eyes of all they could lay hold of till they had the quantity required, and the grim satisfaction with which the monarch received the monstrous tax, are still remembered with horror in Persia; for such things have happened within the memory of living men. To this extent, such atrocities are not likely to be witnessed again, as the more humane character of the last two kings, and comparatively peaceful times, have rendered them of less frequent occurrence than they for many ages have been in Persia. Putting out the eyes has, however, until lately, been very common in individual cases. It is a belief in the east, that blindness incapacitates for the throne, and therefore, in Persia, it has, until the present century, been usual for the kings not, as in Turkey, to slay, but to blind those whose claims to the throne might possibly trouble the existing possessor. Hence, it was the rule for a king, on coming to the throne, to deprive all his brothers of sight, to incapacitate them from giving him any disturbance. A touching story is told of an English lady, who, in visiting the royal harem, encountered there a fine boy groping about with a handkerchief over his eyes; and, when asked his object, he said, “that he knew he should be deprived of sight when his father died, so he was just trying how he should like it.” Truly, “the dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty.” This custom of blinding the eyes, in order to incapacitate for reigning, or to punish rebellion, is noticed in Scripture, and that too with reference to the Babylonians, whose regal customs seem to have had much resemblance to those of their neighbors, the Persians. It was thus that, when Zedekiah was taken as a prisoner to Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, that conqueror who had made him king, and against whom he had revolted, punished him by slaying his children before his face, and directing his eyes to be darkened for ever—a barbarous conception, by which that heart-rending sight, the slaughter of his own sons, was rendered the last of his existence. The punishment of blinding has also been much resorted to in Persia, as well as the cutting out of the tongue, when the king has desired to inflict a punishment short of death, upon nobles and others who have excited his displeasure. Its most usual infliction is upon the chief partisans of a defeated competitor for the throne, but often for much lighter, and even for trivial offences. We will give one anecdote in illustration of this. Sir Harford Jones, who was envoy in Persia early in the present century, mentions that, on his arrival at Khesdt, he met again an old Persian friend, Zal Khan, who, since he saw him last, had been “deprived of two most precious organs, his eyes and his tongue.” This person had been high in the favor and confidence of the king, Lutf Ali Khan, and when he was dispossessed of his throne, and slain by Aga Mohammed Khan, the founder of the present dynasty, this person fell into the hands of the conqueror. It is said that Aga Mohammed had at first no intention of injuring him; but, when Zal Khan stood in the presence of the remorseless destroyer of his beloved master, he could not contain himself, and was so extremely unguarded in what he said, that the king, in a rage, ordered him to be thrown down and deprived of sight. This was done instantly; but, so far from being subdued, when the khan rose in his agony, with the blood streaming from his eyeless sockets, his language became more vehemently reproachful. The king then ordered his tongue to be cut out, saying, “We shall see whether this will not stop the fellow’s abuse.” It had that effect; for the operation was so performed, that is, by destroying half only of the tongue, that he was deprived of all utterance which could be understood. As soon, however, as he was released, and reached home, he had the resolution and fortitude to order the remaining part of his tongue to be extracted; and the result was, that he was then enabled not only to speak, but to articulate even better than he did before this infliction. So says Sir Harford Jones; but Sir John Malcolm, who also relates this incident, says, with more probability, that his utterance, although intelligible, was less distinct than it had been when he possessed his tongue. This, however extraordinary, is a physiological fact well known in Persia, and Zal Khan is far from being the only one who has availed himself of this expedient. Indeed, the previous knowledge of this startling result is shown in the resort which was, in this case, designedly made to the further operation.
Beard Removed
Among other punishments, not directed by any law, but inflicted arbitrarily by the royal order, is the loss of the beard, which, to a Persian, is as grievous and disgraceful as it could have been to the Israelitish ambassadors, who, after their beards had been shamefully taken from them by the Ammonitish king, could not make their appearance in the metropolis, but obtained permission to tarry at Jericho until their beards were grown. To a Persian, the beard appears the peculiar and proper ensign of dignity and manhood. The face of an adult male, without this natural appendage, seems to him shorn of its grace and honor, and is in his eyes unbecoming, effeminate, and ridiculous. He, therefore, loves and cherishes his beard; he treats it himself with respect, and resents the slightest indignity inflicted upon it by another. His wives, his children, and his friends, kiss it in testimony of respect. He swears by his beard, his friend’s beard, and the beard of his king; and these are not regarded as among the least solemn of his oaths. He carefully gathers up the hairs which come from it in dressing, and counts them among his sacred treasures, to be placed with him in the tomb. To say of another, “I spit on his beard,” is the greatest verbal insult one can inflict, and to do so, the greatest actual one. Some have been known to prefer death, and many would prefer blinding or mutilation, to the loss of it—so intolerable is the disgrace, so intense the shame. This is a state of feeling which fully illustrates the Scriptural allusions to the subject. It shows how it was that the king of Gath was perfectly convinced of David’s madness, when he saw him let his spittle fall down upon his beard, 1 Samuel 21:13; it explains the friendship and respect which Joab intended to be understood as showing to Amasa, when, to put him off his guard, “he took him by the beard to kiss it,” 2 Samuel 20:9; and it enables as clearly to understand how the king of the Ammonites was aware that his insult of the ambassadors was one which David could not possibly overlook, and which rendered war inevitable.
Mouth
Another disgraceful infliction—for it is not in the strict sense a punishment—is for the king to order anyone who speaks his mind too unreservedly, or to utter anything in his own defense, to be smitten violently on the mouth. This is usually done with the thick iron-bound heel of the peculiar kind of shoe, or slipper, worn in Persia, and this increases the disgrace, as the shoe is considered mean and unworthy. It is so common, that “to eat shoe” has become a phrase to express it; and to tell another that he has eaten, or shall eat, or deserves to eat shoe, is a common and disgraceful insult. This may remind us of Paul’s being smitten on the mouth, Acts 23:2-3, by command of the high-priest, when he spoke in his own defense, and may account for the peculiar warmth of indignation which the apostle manifested on that occasion. On the other hand, the king expresses his satisfaction, particularly at any gratifying poem, recitation, or utterance, by commanding the person’s mouth to be filled with choice sweet meats, of which, by the bye, the Persians are inordinately fond. Whether there was any analogous custom among the Hebrews we cannot with certainty say; but there are expressions which, with the knowledge of the existence of the custom, may seem to refer to it, such as those in which it is a matter of favor and promise that the opened mouth shall be filled “with good things.” But such expressions are, perhaps, too general to bear so special an application.
Confiscation
Every disgrace of a man in Persia fails not to carry with it the confiscation of wealth, and thus often produces a most terrible and prodigious reverse of fortune; for a man may, in one moment, be so utterly dispossessed of all he owned as to have absolutely nothing left. His very slaves are taken from him, and sometimes even his wives and his children. Everything is in a moment placed under sequestration in one part of his palace, and he is shut up in another utterly alone, like one in whom the plague-spot is seen, without a change of raiment, and, very possibly, without food or drink. All nature, so to speak, has risen against him, and he is often refused a cup of cold water, or a pipe of tobacco, under the pretext that it is not yet known whether the king will permit him to live. The doom, thus purposely made terrible at the moment of infliction, is commonly softened as time passes. The king deigns to make known that he may live; and, having asserted his power over the whole of his property, may graciously condescend to return some small portion to him. His family, some of his slaves, and part of his goods, are usually also, in the long run, restored to him, for which he is expected to be, and commonly is, very grateful. Enough is generally left him to live upon; and it not unfrequently happens that, after a time, he again wins favor at court, and is restored to the public employment. But when this is not done, and life is all that is granted him, it is usually, after some weeks of distress and doubt, intimated to his parents and friends that they are at liberty to afford him assistance without exciting the king’s displeasure. An anecdote of the late king is related by Sir William Ouseley, which illustrates both the absolute power of the king in this respect, and the submission of the subject. We the rather relate it as it has no unpleasant termination. The ameen-ed-doulah, or lord treasurer, had lately been honored with the highest mark of the royal favor, a dress of honor, when, one day, the king suddenly required from him an exact account of all his property—a question which was regarded by the courtiers as a certain prelude to his destruction. He answered, however, with a firm tone, that he could immediately furnish his majesty with 300,000 tomans ($30,000 US dollars)
Philosophy of Life
It appears to us that a somewhat similar state of things must have grown up in Israel under the kings, and that this gives point and force to the frequent allusions in the Psalms and other books to the transitory and uncertain tenure of the most splendid earthly lot; for although this may be, and is, truly applicable to any state of society, it is in such a condition as this most vividly and constantly present to the mind. We, with our very different institutions, can hardly realize an idea of the habitual state of feeling in the man who knows, from day to day, that all his possessions, the comforts of all who are dear to him, his very life, depend upon the nod of one whose word, at any time of the night, drunk or sober, mad or sane, may decide his doom. In mixing ourselves, with persons thus circumstanced, we often tried to realize this feeling to our own mind; but beyond a certain point we could not go, it was too painful to look at steadily. Yet it troubles them little; they are used to such ideas from childhood, and the possibility of losing their property, their eyes, or their life, is looked upon as among the natural and necessary contingencies of their condition. It has much to do in the formation of the national character. It makes the great men live too much for the present, and renders them too regardless of the future. It makes them grasping on the one hand, and extravagant on the other—grasping to have the means of enjoyment and display, and extravagant to realize the present enjoyment, on the principle that this is all of which they are secure; and to increase the means of enjoyment, if hoarded, may be taken from them forever, without the gratification having been secured. “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die,” is the motto of this kind of life.
If anyone doubt whether the same state of things did not, in some extent, exist under the Hebrew monarchy, he will do well to read the warning description which Samuel gives to the Israelites, of the nature of that kingly rule to which they desired subjection, 1 Samuel 8:11-18.
Gift of Clothing The bestowal of a khelat, or dress of honor, has been mentioned in the preceding pages, as the chief of the rewards and distinctions which a Persian king bestows. This matter is of sufficient Scriptural interest to claim particular notice. Its antiquity in Persia itself is there indicated. In Esther 6:7-9, we read: “For the man whom the king delighteth to honor, let the royal apparel be brought which the king useth to wear, and the horse that the king rideth upon, and the crown royal which is set upon his head: and let this apparel and horse be delivered to the hand of one of the king’s most noble princes, that they may array the man withal whom the king delighteth to honor, and bring him on horseback through the street of the city, and proclaim before him, Thus shall it be done to the man whom the king delighteth to honor.” This was designed to confer the highest possible distinction, and a station next to the king, the eminence of the honor being constituted by the fact that the articles were those of royal use. Of a similar nature were the distinctions conferred, at a more ancient date, upon Joseph in Egypt, who was arrayed in a dress of honor, in which he was paraded in much state through the metropolis. Dresses were also bestowed by Joseph himself, as the ruler of Egypt, upon his brethren, a dress for each, except the favored Benjamin, on whom five were conferred, Genesis 45:22-23. Jonathan also, the king’s son, is represented as divesting himself of his robe and his upper garment, even to his sword, his bow, and his girdle, principally, doubtless, in evidence of his affection, but partly to confer upon him the greater honor, as being apparel worn by himself. The New Testament also affords the instance of the wedding garment, or dress of the harem, which the king provided for his guests, and in which they could not neglect to appear without affronting him, Matthew 22:11. All these instances, particularly that in Esther, receive much illustration from present usages in Persia, and are conformable to the existing general rule, which is, that dresses are always presented by superiors to inferiors, and never by inferiors to superiors, who, however, receive from those below them almost every other kind of offering. The king, as already intimated, bestows dresses of honor not only upon those who are at court, but persons at a distance, and he does so annually, at the festival of the Nurooz, to the governors of provinces, in testimony of his approbation of their conduct; this being, in fact, the highest honor he can confer, and one which grants a degree of nobility to such as did not previously possess it. Mr. Morier describes the ceremony with which such a dress from the king was received by the prince of Shiraz. The prince went in his greatest state to Khelat[7]Poushan, there to meet and to be invested with the dress of honor, which was sent to him by the king at the festival of Nurooz. All the circumstances attendant upon the reception of the khelat being the greatest criterions by which the public may judge of the degree of influence which the receiver has at court, every intrigue is exerted during the preparation of the royal khelat, that it may be as indicative of the royal favor as possible. The person who is the bearer of it,[8] the expressions used in the firman[9] announcing its having been conferred, and the nature of the khelat itself, are all circumstances which are discussed as matters of the most momentous importance and interest by the Persian public. The khelat usually consists of a kaba, or close coat, a bala push, or outer garment, a fine shawl for the head, and another for the girdle. If the khelat is designed to be splendid, the bala push is of gold brocade, and lined with fur, and the shawls are costly Indian ones; and when it is intended to be in all respects complete, and of the highest distinction, the articles composing it are exactly the same as those which the ancient Persian monarchs are described by the Greek historians as bestowing on those they designed to honor; namely, in addition to the dress, a horse with a golden bridle, a chain of gold, and a sword in a golden sheath. If any of these articles have been used by the king himself, the honor is the greater.
[9] Edict of the King
Such, or nearly such, was the khelat which the prince of Shiraz received on the occasion described, and to the reception of which he therefore gave all the publicity he could devise. The prince himself was conspicuous by a parasol being borne over his head, which to this day is a privilege allowed only to royalty, and is exemplified in the ancient sculpture at Persepolis, where the principal personage is frequently distinguished by a parasol carried over him. The road, about three miles, was strewed with roses, and watered; both of which are modes of doing honor to persons of distinction; and at very frequent intervals glass vases, filled with sugar, were broken under the horses’ feet. The treading upon sugar is symbolical, in their estimation, of prosperity; the scattering of flowers was a ceremony performed in honor of Alexander on his entry into Babylon, and has, perhaps, some affinity to the custom of cutting down branches off the trees, and strewing them in the way, which was practiced upon our Savior’s entry into Jerusalem,[10]Mark 11:8.
[11] Clasp [12] $27,377.50 to $41,066.20 in U.S. Dollars [13] Literally, cloaks again rain