Ancient Greek historian Herodotus of Halicarnassus described how the Persians decided on important matters, debating major issues twice, once while sober and again while drunk, offering vivid accounts of their customs in the 5th century BC.
Known by many as the “Father of History,” he wrote Histories, a work covering Ancient Greece and several regions of the then-known world. Known for his fondness for anecdotes, he often included colorful stories about peoples and cultures, some later confirmed and others disputed by subsequent historians.
In Book 1, one of the most fascinating examples is his observation of the Persians’ unusual ritual for making decisions: they would deliberate significant issues twice—first while drunk and again the following day when sober. Though this practice may seem odd by modern standards, it reveals much about Persian customs and attitudes toward judgment, truth, and the duality of human reasoning. Later scholars and historians have analyzed this ritual, offering insights into its broader cultural and practical significance.
How the Persians relied on a peculiar ritual to decide on important matters
In Histories (Book 1, 133), the Ancient Greek Herodotus described the unusual way the Persians decided on important matters. He explained that when faced with serious issues, they first deliberated while drinking and then reconsidered the same matter the following day when sober. If they agreed on a decision in both sessions, they regarded it as correct and acted upon it. Specifically, he wrote:
“And of all days their wont is to honor most that on which they were born, each one: on this they think it right to set out a feast more liberal than on other days; and in this feast the wealthier of them set upon the table an ox or a horse or a camel or an ass, roasted whole in an oven, and the poor among them set out small animals in the same way. They have few solid dishes,[139] but many served up after as dessert, and these not in a single course; and for this reason the Persians say that the Hellenes leave off dinner hungry, because after dinner they have nothing worth mentioning served up as dessert, whereas if any good dessert were served up they would not stop eating so soon.
To wine-drinking they are very much given, and it is not permitted for a man to vomit or to make water in presence of another. Thus do they provide against these things; and they are wont to deliberate when drinking hard about the most important of their affairs, and whatsoever conclusion has pleased them in their deliberation, this on the next day, when they are sober, the master of the house in which they happen to be when they deliberate lays before them for discussion: and if it pleases them when they are sober also, they adopt it, but if it does not please them, they let it go: and that on which they have had the first deliberation when they are sober, they consider again when they are drinking.”
(Translated by G.C. Macaulay)
A wise or irrational Persian ritual for deciding on things?
At first glance, the Persian method of deliberating on serious issues may seem contradictory and even irrational. However, it reflects a sophisticated awareness of the human psyche. The Persians appeared to believe that both sobriety and intoxication revealed different truths: sobriety brought restraint, logic, and caution, while inebriation unleashed uninhibited thought, emotional honesty, and courage. Decisions that passed scrutiny in both states were considered valid, meaning that neither state alone was sufficient.
This two-fold process resembles what modern psychologists might describe as a check against cognitive bias. In wine-induced looseness, one might be more honest or bold but also reckless. Sober reflection then acted as a filter. Conversely, decisions made under purely rational or cautious conditions might lack vision or passion and so were re-examined under the uninhibited perspective of intoxication. Herodotus presented this practice not as a flaw but as a deliberate and culturally significant tradition.
Other ancient authors and historians also took note of Persian customs, though not always of this dual deliberation. Xenophon, the Ancient Greek historian and soldier who admired aspects of Persian governance, depicted Persian rulers, especially Cyrus the Great, as deliberate and thoughtful in his Cyropaedia. While he does not mention the drunk-sober decision ritual, his portrayal is indicative of a society that valued careful governance and diverse modes of reflection.
The philosophical character of Persian kingship, according to Ancient Greek historian Plutarch
Writing in the 2nd century AD, Ancient Greek historian Plutarch recognized the philosophical dimension of Persian kingship. In his work Moralia (Morals), Plutarch reflected on the symbolism of wine across various cultures, suggesting that it was not merely a source of pleasure but a means of revealing deeper truths. This perspective resonates with the possible philosophical foundation of how the Persians decided on matters, as described by Ancient Greek historian Herodotus.
The Persian method also invites comparison with Greek traditions of symposia, where wine, food, and philosophy were closely intertwined. The Athenian symposium functioned as both a social and intellectual forum, where ideas could be exchanged freely under the influence of wine, yet always within a structured and purposeful setting. Plato’s Symposium illustrates how profound philosophical insight could emerge in such an environment. While the Greeks did not formalize the drunk-sober method, their practices similarly acknowledged the value of wine as a conduit for truth.
The Latin phrase “in vino veritas,” meaning “in wine, there is truth,” further underscores this idea: a person under the influence of alcohol may reveal hidden thoughts and desires. Popularized by Pliny the Elder in the 1st century AD, this concept lends additional context and credibility to the Persian custom.
Modern scholars on the Persian custom
Modern scholars have provided various interpretations of Herodotus’ account. Pierre Briant, in his comprehensive From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, suggests that many of Herodotus’ tales about Persia walk the line between ethnography and storytelling. According to Briant, Herodotus often highlighted cultural differences to both fascinate and educate his Greek audience. This dual deliberation method thus served as a reflective lens for Greek readers. It was exotic and familiar, yet also paradoxical and guided by a discernible method.
Certain scholars argue that Herodotus’ account may reflect Ancient Greek perceptions more so than Persian reality. The historian himself admitted that he recorded what he heard rather than verifying this, and the story of Persian double deliberation might have been a generalization or anecdote elevated to cultural significance. Nevertheless, whether strictly accurate or not, it reveals a profound interest in how different peoples reason and govern themselves.
Herodotus’ description of Persian decision-making—a system in which both drunken and sober states were required for final judgment—offers a unique lens into Persian culture and a broader reflection on human reason. By requiring decisions to pass through two contrasting mental states, the Persians sought to capture a more complete truth, balancing emotion with reason and impulse with prudence.
While alien to modern governance, this practice demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the mind and an unusual respect for both its irrational and rational sides. As Herodotus repeatedly illustrated, the diversity of human customs offers valuable lessons and opportunities for learning across cultures.
See all the latest news from Greece and the world at Greekreporter.com. Contact our newsroom to report an update or send your story, photos and videos. Follow GR on Google News and subscribe here to our daily email!
