Note 938 — ANTIENT HEROES.

The person who is supposed to have first formed a code of institutes for this people, is said to have been one of the Magi, named Zerdusht. I mention this, because Hyde, and other learned men, have imagined this Zerdusht to have been the antient Zoroaster. They have gone so far as to suppose the two names to have been the [938]same; between which I can scarce descry any resemblance. There seem to have been many persons styled Zoroaster: so that if the name had casually retained any affinity, or if it had been literally the same, yet it would not follow, that this Persic and Indian Theologist was the person of whom antiquity speaks so loudly. We read of persons of this name in different parts of the world, who were all of them Magi, or Priests, and denominated from the rites of Zoroaster, which they followed. Suidas mentions a Zoroaster, whom he styles an Assyrian; and another whom he calls Περσο-Μηδης, Perso-Medes: and describes them both as great in science. There was a Zoroaster Proconnesius, in the time of Xerxes, spoken of by [939]Pliny. Arnobius mentions Zoroastres Bactrianus: and Zoroastres Zostriani nepos [940]Armenius. Clemens Alexandrinus takes notice of Zoroaster [941]Medus, who is probably the same as the Perso-Medes of Suidas. Zoroastres Armenius is likewise mentioned by him, but is styled the son of [942]Armenius, and a Pamphylian. It is said of him that he had a renewal of life: and that during the term that he was in a state of death, he learned many things of the Gods. This was a piece of mythology, which I imagine did not relate to the Pamphylian Magus, but to the head of all the Magi, who was reverenced and worshipped by them. There was another styled a Persian, whom Pythagoras is said to have [943]visited. Justin takes notice of the Bactrian [944]Zoroaster, whom he places in the time of Ninus. He is also mentioned by [945]Cephalion, who speaks of his birth, and the birth of Semiramis (γενεσιν Σεμιραμεως και Ζωροαστρου Μαγου) as of the same date. The natives of India have a notion of a Zoroaster, who was of Chinese original, as we are informed by [946]Hyde. This learned man supposes all these personages, the Mede, the Medo-Persic, the Proconnesian, the Bactrian, the Pamphylian, &c. to have been one and the same. This is very wonderful; as they are by their history apparently different. He moreover adds, that however people may differ about the origin of this person, yet all are unanimous about the time when he [947]lived. To see that these could not all be the same person, we need only to cast our eye back upon the evidence which has been collected above: and it will be equally certain, that they could not be all of the same æra. There are many specified in history; but we may perceive, that there was one person more antient and celebrated than the rest; whose history has been confounded with that of others who came after him. This is a circumstance which has been observed by [948]many: but this ingenious writer unfortunately opposes all who have written upon the subject, however determinately they may have expressed themselves. [949]At quicquid dixerint, ille (Zoroaster) fuit tantum unus, isque tempore Darii Hystaspis: nec ejus nomine plures unquam extitere. It is to be observed, that the person, whom he styles Zoroaster, was one Zerdusht. He lived, it seems, in the reign of Darius, the father of Xerxes; which was about the time of the battle of Marathon: consequently not a century before the birth of Eudoxus, Xenophon, and Plato. We have therefore no authority to suppose [950]this Zerdusht to have been the famous Zoroaster. He was apparently the renewer of the Sabian rites: and we may be assured, that he could not be the person so celebrated by the antients, who was referred to the first ages. Hyde asserts, that all writers agree about the time, when Zoroaster made his appearance: and he places him, as we have seen above, in the reign of Darius. But Xanthus Lydius made him above [951]six hundred years prior. And [952]Suidas from some anonymous author places him five hundred years before the war of Troy. Hermodorus Platonicus went much farther, and made him five thousand years before that [953]æra. Hermippus, who professedly wrote of his doctrines, supposed him to have been of the same [954]antiquity. Plutarch also [955]concurs, and allows him five thousand years before that war. Eudoxus, who was a consummate philosopher, and a great traveller, supposed him to have flourished six thousand years before the death of [956]Plato. Moses [957]Chorenensis, and [958]Cephalion, make him only contemporary with Ninus, and Semiramis: but even this removes him very far from the reign of Darius. Pliny goes beyond them all; and places him many thousand years before Moses. [959]Est et alia Magices factio, a Mose, et Jamne, et Lotapea Judæis pendens: sed multis millibus annorum post Zoroastrem. The numbers in all these authors, are extravagant: but so much we may learn from them, that they relate to a person of the highest antiquity. And the purport of the original writers, from whence the Grecians borrowed their evidence, was undoubtedly to shew, that the person spoken of lived at the extent of time; at the commencement of all historical data. No fact, no memorial upon record, is placed so high as they have carried this personage. Had Zoroaster been no earlier than Darius, Eudoxus would never have advanced him to this degree of antiquity. This writer was at the same distance from Darius, as Plato, of whom he speaks: and it is not to be believed, that he could be so ignorant, as not to distinguish between a century, and six thousand years. Agathias indeed mentions, that some of the Persians had a notion, that he flourished in the time of one Hystaspes; but he confesses, that who the Hystaspes was, and at what time he lived, was [960]uncertain. Aristotle wrote not long after Eudoxus, when the history of the Persians was more known to the Grecians, and he allots the same number of years between Zoroaster and Plato, as had been [961]before given. These accounts are for the most part carried too far; but at the same time, they fully ascertain the high antiquity of this person, whose æra is in question. It is plain that these writers in general extend the time of his life to the æra of the world, according to their estimation; and make it prior to Inachus, and Phoroneus, and Ægialeus of Sicyon.