Wherefore have the ancients recorded a variety of men, under the name of Zoroaster? τίς γᾶ; τί γένος ; Eschyl. Prometh. Vinct. V. 563. ALTHOUGH, by entering upon a subject, which has excited the curiosity of the ingenious, and stimulated the research of the profound, I be deemed by some to travel over ground already sufficiently trodden, yet as the records concerning it have never been exhausted, and as no author, whom I have had the good fortune to see, appears to have completely elucidated it, if any new light can be reflected upon it, I shall consider myself sufficiently exculpated. That the Greeks knew but little of Zoroaster, I feel no hesitation in asserting, and that many moderns err respecting this personage, may possibly be as easily demonstrated. Plato, however, whose superior mind by its own energies emerged from vulgar errors, rightly defines his magic to be, О gañía. e. g. Alcib. i. 32. ὧν ὁ μὲν μαγείαν τε διδάσκει, τὴν Ζωροάστρου τοῦ Ωρομάζουν (ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο Θεῶν θεραπεία) διδάσκει δὲ καὶ τὰ βασιλικά. And Porphyry de Abstr. iv. 163. also says, aga ye μnu Tois Ilégσαις, οἱ περὶ τὸ θεῖον σοφοὶ καὶ τούτου θεράποντες, μάγοι μὲν προσαγοPEÚOVτa, which certainly is no bad description of the ancient مجوس مغان the version of others, notwithstanding, from into uyo by the Greeks, and magi by the Latins, have annexed the idea of sorcery or enchantment to the Persian term, and conjectured as much respecting the Guebres: thus Justin 1. 1. writes, postremum hinc bellum cum Zoroastre rege Bactrianorum fuit, qui primus dicitur artes magicas invenisse, et mundi principia, siderumque motus diligentissimè spectâsse. But although the word in Persian and in Arabic are not used to express magic, it is not improbable that the priests of that order may have practised the arts of the modern Derweesh or Fakeer to deceive the admiring populace; such may have been the Don of the Egyptians mentioned in Exodus, and of the Babylonians recorded in Daniel: but whether this were or were not the fact, it can by no means be collected from the name The Muhhammedan poets have made the word signify a tavernkeeper; and they also use it to express fraternities of Christian monks; indeed, the prosaic writers use this or some title indicative of the pyréal rites to distinguish all infidels, in the same way as the Italian councils the term "erético," and the Spanish inquisitors مغان "herege" to mark all, who dissented in opinion from themselves. Thus Hhafezz says, w مغان كويد بمي سجاده رنگين كن كرت بیر Distain thou thy sacred carpet with wine, if ever the Peer-i Mughan address thee.' That many persons have existed of this name is well known; Bryant instances Zoroaster the Mede, the Medo-Persic, the Proconnesian, the Bactrian, the Chaldean, the Pamphylian, the Æthiopian, &c.; and Agathias 1. 2. writes, ouros de Zwpóudos toι, Ζαράδης (δίττη γὰρ ἐπ ̓ αὐτῷ ἡ ἐπωνυμία) ὁπήνικα μὲν ἤκμαζε τὴν ἄρχην, καὶ τοὺς νόμους ἔθετο, οὐκ ἔνεστι σαφῶς διαγνώναι. Πέρσαι δὲ αὐτοὶ οἱ νῦν ἐπὶ Ὑστασπέω οὕτω δή τι ἁπλῶς φασὶ γεγονέναι, ὡς λιὰν ἀμφιγνοεἴσθαι, καὶ οὐκ εἶναι μαθεῖν πότερον Δαρείου πατήρ, εἴτε ἄλλος, οὗτος ὑπῆρχεν Υστάσπης, καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ τὰς προτέρας ἱερουργίας αμειψὰς παμμιγεῖς τίνας καὶ ποικίλας ἀνέθηκε δόξας. The observations of Agathias display much discernment, and sound judgment concerning the diversity of the accounts; and Bryant is most clearly correct in averring, that he who appeared in the time of Hydaspes could not have been the Zoroaster of the ancients, but merely the renewer of the Tsabæan rites. Almost every Tarikh mentions a Zerdusht in the time of Gushtasp son of Lohorasp; and the Shâh-nameh contains several inimitable verses concerning him, which are epito but the Jehan Ara particularly ; شاه نامه نثر mized in the records his family name, لهراسف لقبش هربد يعني عابد النار- در زمان کشتاسف بن او زردشت که نام اصلی او دعاد است ودعوي پيغمبري كرد : Gushtasp was son of Lohorasp, whose surname was Herbud, i. e. servant of fire in his time Zerdusht, whose family name was Dâada, lived, and pretended to be a prophet.'-The Zerdushtnameh calls his father's name and his mother's . دغدوب It is also certain, that more than one Zoroaster existed, from the discordance of the accounts of the time, in which Zoroaster is said to have lived. Eudoxus and Aristotle make him 6000 years before Plato's death; Hermippus, 5000 before the Trojan war; Pliny, many thousand years before Moses; and Plutarch de Iside et Osiride says, οὗτος ἐδίδαξε εὐκταῖα θυεῖν καὶ χαριστήρια, from whence Cluver confidently assumes, that Zoroaster must 1 See Cluv. Bryant, &c. be Adam. Therefore it becomes evident, that there was a Zoroaster before the time of Darius Hydaspes; for Diogenes Laërtius procm. p. 3. makes him 6000 years prior to that time. Some have made him contemporary with Ninus, others with Semiramis (if indeed such men ever existed,) some have confounded him with Hhus, others with Mitzraim, some with Nimrod, others with Moses. We shall discover equal indecision in the Oriental accounts; we shall find, that some imagine him to have been a Chinese, whose father's name was Espintaman, and whose mother was called Dodo, which names (as Hyde judiciously observes) cannot be Chinese; consequently the account cannot be true. Muhhammed Mustafa, in the life of Gushtasp, says, Abu w تلا ميذة عزير سمعه و قراء عليه ثم خالفه كان هو من تدعي عليه عزير حتي تجذم فنفاه بني اسراءييل من بينهم فسار الي طرف المشرق "He was one of the disciples of Esdras, whom he was accustomed to hear, and to whom he was also accustomed to read alternately. And Esdras cursed him, until he became leprous. Then the children of Israel expelled him from their society, and he directed his course towards the East.' Bundâri, likewise quoted by Hyde, gives a nearly corresponding relation, and says on the authority of Abu Iâafar Al Tabari, that he was an inhabitant of Palestine, and that به he was a servant to one of the disciples of Jeremiah the prophet, in high estimation and favor with him and Said Ebn Batric avers, that Zorodasht lived in the days of Nahor the father of Terah. Not being persuaded of the authenticity of the Sad-der and the Zend-avesta, I adduce no examples from them. From the Persian and Arabic accounts it therefore appears, that there must have been a Zerdusht, or that the rites of Zerdusht must have existed before the time of him, who florished in the days of Gushtasp, and that the Zoroaster, of whom we read in Porphyry de Antro Nympharum, p. 254. could not have been the first of that name. This is evident from the Majizat Farsee, p. 224., فرس در قدیم زمان بر دین صابیه بودندی کواکب پرستندندپ تا زمان کشتاسپ بن لهراسب The Persians in ancient times were followers of the Tsabæan religion, and adored the stars down to the time of Gushtasp son of Lohorasp;' but it must be clear, tha tthe authorities, which confound Żerdusht with Abraham, cannot be correct, and proceed in a great degree from the fables of the Targumists, and Rabbins. From innumerable passages in the Greek writers we are able to show, that there were some of this name amongst the Chaldees, from whence has arisen a confusion almost endless, so that both the Trinity and the oracles ascribed to Zoroaster have been indefinitely called Magic or Chaldaic. An author cited by Suidas says, "Αστρονομίαν πρῶτοι Βαβυλώνιοι ἔφευρον διὰ Ζωροάστρου, μεθ ̓ ὃν Οστάνης—ἀφ ̓ ὧν Αἰγύπτιοι καὶ Ἕλληνες ἐδέξαντο. If then upon so intricate a point, I may be permitted to indulge an opinion, I would thus solve the difficulty. Since fromt he Scriptural records, b it is abundantly evident, that fire-worship prevailed in Chaldæa before the days of Abram, as at that early period of the world, places were most frequently named after some prominent circumstance, and if what the Rabbins aver be correct, especially what the learned Moses Ben Maimon asserts, it probably arose shortly after the time of Enos, to which æra other writers have referred the origin of Tsabaism; therefore it seems likely, that Zoroaster could not have introduced the pyréal rites. On an inspection into the multiform idolatry of the East, following the authority of such men as Herodotus and as Diodorus Siculus, we may safely conclude, that the pyréal rites in the oriental parts of the world were so many branches of one form of worship, which the author already adduced from Suidas, whom we can support from the Scriptures, says, were first in use among the Babylonians; for if they were addicted to astronomical researches, the ignorance and credulity of the age, as well as the nature of the study, would lead them to introduce pyréal rites in honor of the sun, which have always been inseparable from genuine Tsabaism. May we then not scruple to say that Zoroaster was no one individual person, that Zoroaster was the cognomen of the priests of those rites, whether we find them in Chaldæa, in Persia, or in other country, where he was affirmed to have been and sup any posing this to be the case, shall we not at once find the incoherent accounts of the Greek historians harmonised? No man, who knows the prevailing custom of titular cognomina in the East, will dispute this conjecture :—indeed, if other proofs were wanting, he would perceive abundant evidence in the Hebrew writings; but independent of them, the Tuzuk-i Teemoor instances five kings from the Turki annals, who by reason of their greatness are never called by their proper names, و چین دارا پادشاه هند قیصر پادشاه روم - فغفور پادشاه خطا و ماچین - خاقان پادشاه ترکستان-شهنشاه پادشاه ایران و توران Dārā the mighty Sovereign of Hindôstan-Cæsar (Quee sur) the mighty Sovereign of Room (Constantinople)-Fughfoor the mighty Sovereign of Khōtā, of Cheen, and of Mācheen- Khāquan the mighty Sovereign of Turkistān-Shehinshāh (literally king of kings) the mighty Sovereign of Īrān and Tooran: and the quotation from the Jehan Āra proves, that Zerdusht was the cognomen of Dâada, who now has been shown merely to have been the renovator of that worship, which probably had begun to have been neglected. One proof therefore supports the other, since it is manifest that men had cognomina from their different functions or from certain actions performed by them, and that cities received their names not arbitrarily, but from certain rites and ceremonies, or from some memorable circumstance relating to them; thus among other instances Pithom, of which we read in Exodus 1. 11. is said by the Cophts to be IIЄeши TВARIHеH ПIRDI HPUCCH Pethom, a city in the land of Ramesses, but by the Greeks to be ἡρώων πόλις ἐν γῇ ̔Ραμεσσῇ. If this be correct, what is the signification of the term Zerdusht or Zoroaster? it cannot be Bryant's Sol Asterius, it cannot be the vivum astrum tev ärrgov of Clemens Alexandrinus; and what authority or reason have we to presume, that it is aσrpolóns? That it stands for the friend of fire, as Texeira was informed, is impossible; because Hyde most accurately objects to an with a medda undergoing apheresis, as not common to the language, and instances that simply means gold in like manner we may object, that s for gs is also inadmissible, because the Persian possesses, meaning a desert, and |