μυρια δ' αστηΝασσατ' εποιχομενος.
μυρια δ' αστηΝασσατ' εποιχομενος.
μυρια δ' αστη
Νασσατ' εποιχομενος.
He represents him as conquering all Asia and Europe; and this in times so remote, that many of the cities which he built, were in ruins before the æra of the Argonauts.
From what has been said, we may perceive that if such a person as Sesostris had existed, his reign must have been of the earliest date. He is by some represented as succeeding Thoules: according to others he comes one degree higher, being introduced after[898]Orus, who in the catalogue of Panodorus is placed first of the Demigods, that reigned in Egypt; but by[899]Herodotus is ranked among the deities. According to Dicæarchus the reign of Sesostris was two thousand five hundred years before Nilus: and the reign of the latter was four hundred and thirty-six years before the first Olympiad. I do not place the least confidence in these computations; but would only shew from them that the person spoken of must be referred to the mythic age, to the æra of the Demigods of Egypt. Some of these evidences are taken notice of by Sir John[900]Marsham; who cannot extricate himself from the difficulties with which his system is attended. He has taken for granted, that Sesostris and Sesonchosis are the Sesac of the Scriptures; though every circumstance of their history is repugnant to that notion.[901]I knownot,says he,what to make of this Sesonchosis; who is represented as five thousand years before Menes, and who is referred to the time of the Demigods. In another place:Sesostris, who is in the twelfth Dynasty of Africanus, and whose æra extends higher, than the Canon of Eusebius reaches, reigned according to Scaliger's computation in the 1392d year of the Julian Period. By this calculation Sesostris is made prior to Sesostris; and this too by no less than 2355 years: for it is manifest, as I will shew from Scripture, that Sesostris undertook his expedition into Asia, and got possession of Jerusalem in the 3747th year of the Period abovementioned. What is said in the sacred writings, I have taken notice of before. Not a word occurs about Sesostris, nor of any such Asiatic expedition. I am obliged to say, that through the whole of this learned writer's process, instead of a proof, we find nothing else but the question begged, and some inferences of his own in consequence of this assumption. He indeed quotes the authority of Manethon from Josephus to prove that the great actions of Sesostris were the same as were performed by Sesac. But Manethon says no such thing: nor does Josephus attribute any such exploits to Sesac: but expressly says more than once, that Sesac, and Sesostris were two different[902]persons. It is no where said of Sesac, that he made an expedition into Asia; much less that he conquered it, as is supposed of Sesostris. Sesac went up against Jerusalem, and took it,αμαχητι, without meeting with any opposition. Upon this he departed, and carried with him the treasures which he had there seized: in other words, he went home again. There is not the least mention made of his invading[903]Samaria, or the country about Libanus, and Sidon; or of his marching to Syria: all which made but a small part of the great Continent, called in aftertimes Asia: much less did he visit the countries of the Assyrians, and Babylonians; or the regions of Elam and the Medes. All this, and much more he must have done, to have come up to the character, to which they would fain entitle him.
I will not enter into any farther discussion of the great conquests attributed to this supposed monarch Sesostris. They are as ideal as those of Sesac, and sufficiently confute themselves. First Osiris is said to have conquered the whole earth: then Zeus, then Perseus, then[904]Hercules, all nearly of the same degree of antiquity, if we may believe the best Mythologists. Myrina comes in for a share of conquest in the time of Orus. After her Thoules subdues the whole from the Eastern Ocean, to the great Atlantic: and as if nothing had been performed before, Sesostris immediately succeeds, and conquers it over again.[905]Herodotus informs us, as a token of these victories, that Sesostris erected pillars and obelisks with emblematical inscriptions: and that he saw some of them in Phrygia, and in other countries, which had been conquered. He without doubt saw pillars: but how did he know for certain, by whom they were erected? and who taught him to interpret the symbols? Pausanias takes[906]notice of a colossal statue in the Thebäis, and says that the history given of it was not satisfactory. He tells us, that it stood near the Syringes, in upper Egypt; and he viewed it with great admiration. It was the figure of a man in a sitting posture; which some said was the representation of Memnon the Ethiopian: others maintained, that it was the statue of Phamenophis: and others again, that it related to Sesostris. There were here emblems, and symbols; yet a diversity of opinions. I want therefore to know, how Herodotus could interpret in Phrygia, what a native could not decypher in Egypt. The same question may be asked about the people of Syria, among whom were obelisks attributed to the same person. How came they to be so determinate about an Egyptian work; when people of that country in the same circumstances were so utterly at a loss? the whole undoubtedly was matter of surmise. I shall not therefore say any thing more of Sesostris; as I must again speak of him, when I come to the kings of Egypt.
If we compare the above histories, we may perceive that they bear a manifest similitude to one another; though they are attributed to different persons. They contain accounts of great achievements in the first ages: in effecting which these antient heroes are represented as traversing immense regions, and carrying their arms to the very limits of the known world: the great Tartarian ocean to the east, and the Atlantic westward, being the boundaries of their travel. Some of them seem to have been of the same age; and to have carried on these conquests at nearly the same time: and those, whose æra may possibly differ, have this in common with the others; that they visit the same countries, march for the most part by the same rout; and are often joined by the same allies, and are followed by the like attendants. They are in general esteemed benefactors, wherever they go: and carry the sciences with them, as well as their religious rites; in which they instruct the natives in different parts of the world. These are to be sure noble occurrences; which however could not possibly have happened, as they are represented above. It is not to be supposed, that any person in those early ages, or in any age, could go over such a tract of country; much less that he should subdue it. It is still more improbable, that such extensive conquests should be so immediately repeated: and that they should in some instances be carried on by different people at nearly the same time. They, who speak of mighty empires being founded in those early days, know little of true history; and have formed a very wrong judgment of the politics, which then universally prevailed. The whole earth, as far as we can learn, was divided into little coördinate states: every city seems to have been subservient to its own Judge and Ruler, and independent of all others. In the land of[907]Canaan thirty-one kings were subdued by Joshua, between Jordan and the sea: and some were still left by him unconquered. In those days, says the learned Marsham, quot urbes, tot regna. The like was for many ages after observable in Greece, as well as in Latham, Samnium, and Hetruria. A powerful enemy made Egypt unite under one head: and the necessities of the people in a time of dearth served to complete that system. The Israelites too, when settled in Canaan, formed a large kingdom. Excepting these two nations we know of none of any considerable extent, that were thus united. The[908]Syrians and the Philistim were in separate states, and under different governors. The kingdoms of Nineve and Babylonia consisted each of one mighty city, with its environs; in which were perhaps included some subordinate villages. They were properly walled[909]Provinces; and the inhabitants were in a state of rest for ages. The Assyrian did not till about seven hundred years before Christ, begin to contend for dominion, and make acquisition of territory: and we may form a judgment, from what he then[910]gained, of what he was possessed before. The cities Hala, Habor, Haran in Mesopotamia, with Carchemish upon the Euphrates, were his first conquests: to these he added the puny states Ina, Iva, and Sepharvaim upon the same river. He then proceeded to Hamath, Damascus, and other cities of Syria; and at last came to Samaria. The line of conquest points out the route, which he took; and shews that there were in Mesopotamia numberless little states, independent of Babylon and Nineve, though in their immediate vicinity. Consequently the notion of the extent, dominion, and antiquity of those Monarchies, as delivered by Ctesias and others, is entirely void of truth. The conquests likewise of those Heroes and Demigods, who are made coeval with the supposed foundations of those Monarchies, must be equally groundless. To say the truth, the very personages are ideal, and have been formed out of the titles of the Deity: and the history, with which they are attended, related not to conquest, but to peregrinations of another nature; to Colonies which went abroad, and settled in the countries mentioned. The antients, as I have repeatedly said, have given to a person, what related to a people: and if we make this small allowance, the history will be found in great measure true.
Having given an account of the mythic heroes of Egypt, I think it necessary to subjoin an history of two others of the like stamp, who have made no less figure in the annals of Babylon and Assyria. The persons, to whom I allude, are Ninus and Semiramis; whose conquests, though they did not extend so far as those above, are yet alike wonderful, and equally groundless. It is said of Ninus, that he was the first king of[911]Assyria: and being a prince of great power, he made war on his neighbours the Babylonians, whom he conquered. He afterwards invaded the Armenians; whose king Barsanes, finding himself much inferior to his adversary, diverted his anger by great presents, and a voluntary[912]submission. The next object of his ambition was Media, which he soon subdued; and getting Phanius, the king of the country, into his hands, together with his wife and seven children, he condemned them all to becrucified.His hopes being greatly raised by this success, he proceeded to reduce all the nations to his obedience between the Tanaïs and the Nile: and in seventeen years he made so great a progress, that, excepting Bactria, all Asia submitted to him as far as the river Indus. In the series of conquered countries Ctesias enumerates Egypt, Phenicia, Coile Syria, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Lycia, Caria, Phrygia, Mysia, Lydia, Cappadocia, and the nations in Pontus, and those near the Tanaïs. To these are added the Dacians, Hyrcanians, Derbicians, Carmanians, Parthians, with all Persis and Susiana, and the numerous nations upon the Caspian sea. After these notable actions he laid the foundation of the great city Nineve: which by mistake is said to have been built upon the banks of the[913]Euphrates. His last expedition was against the Bactrians: at which time he first saw Semiramis, a woman of uncommon endowments, and great personal charms. He had an army which amounted to seven millions of foot, and two millions of horse, with two hundred thousand chariots with scythes. For the possibility of which circumstances Diodorus tries to account in favour of the historian, from whom he borrows. By the conduct of Semiramis the Bactrians are subdued; and Ninus takes the capital of the country: upon which, in return for her services, he makes Semiramis his queen. Not long after he dies, leaving only one son by this princess, who was called Ninyas.
The history of Semiramis is variously related by different authors. Some make her a native of Ascalon; and say that she was exposed in the desert, and nourished by pigeons. She was in this situation discovered by a shepherd named Simma. He bred her up, and married her to Menon; whom she deserted for Ninus. During her son's minority she assumed the regal state: and the first work which she undertook was the interment of her husband. She accordingly buried him with great splendor; and raised over him a mound of earth, no less than a mile and a quarter high, and proportionally wide at bottom: after which she built Babylon. This being finished, she made an expedition into Media; and wherever she came left memorials of her power and munificence. This was effected by erecting vast structures, forming lakes, and laying out gardens of great extent; particularly in Chaonia and Ecbatana. In short, she levelled hills, and raised[914]mounds of an immense height, which retained her name for ages. After this she invaded Egypt, and conquered Ethiopia, with the greater part of Lybia: and having accomplished her wish, and there being no enemy to cope with her, excepting the people of India, she resolved to direct her forces towards that quarter. She had an army of three millions of foot, five hundred thousand horse, and one hundred thousand chariots. For the passing of rivers, and engaging with the enemy by water, she had procured two thousand ships, to be so constructed as to be taken to pieces for the advantage of carriage: which ships were built in Bactria by experienced persons from Phenicia, Syria, and Cyprus. With these she entered into a naval engagement with Strabrobates king of India; and at the first encounter sunk a thousand of his ships. Upon this she built a bridge over the river Indus, and penetrated into the heart of the country. Here Strabrobates engaged her; but being deceived by the numerous appearance of her elephants, at first gave way. For being deficient in those animals, she had procured the hides of three thousand black oxen; which being properly sewed, and stuffed with straw, formed an appearance of so many elephants. All this was done so naturally, that the real animals could not stand the sight. But this stratagem being at last discovered, Semiramis was obliged to retreat, after having lost a great part of her[915]army. Soon after this she resigned the government to her son Ninyas, and died. According to some writers, she was slain by his hand.
The history of Ninus and Semiramis, as here represented, is in great measure founded upon terms, which have been misconstrued; and these fictions have been invented in consequence of the mistakes. Under the character of Semiramis we are certainly to understand a people styled Semarim, atitleassumed by the antient Babylonians. They were called Semarim from their insigne, which was a dove, expressed Semaramas, of which I shall speak hereafter more at large. It was used as an object of worship; and esteemed the same as Rhea, the mother of the gods:[916]Σεμιραμιν και την Ῥεαν καλουμενην παρ' Ασσυριοις.
If we take the history of Semiramis, as it is given us by Ctesias and others; nothing can be more inconsistent. Some make her the wife of Ninus: others say that she was his[917]daughter: and about the time of her birth they vary beyond measure. She is sometimes made cöeval with the city Nineve: at other times she is brought down within a few centuries of[918]Herodotus. She invades the Babylonians before the city was[919]built, from whence they were denominated: and makes sumptuous gardens at Ecbatana. Hence that city is introduced as coëval with Nineve: though, if the least credit may be given to[920]Herodotus, it was built many ages after by Deïoces the Mede. The city Nineve itself is by Ctesias placed upon the[921]Euphrates; though every other writer agrees, that it lay far to the east, and was situated upon the Tigris. This shews how little credit is to be paid to Ctesias. The whole account of the fleet of ships built in Bactria, and carried upon camels to the Indus, is a childish forgery. How can we suppose, that there were no woods to construct such vessels, but in the most inland regions of Asia? The story of the fictitious elephants, made out of the hides of black oxen, which put to flight the real elephants, is another silly fable. Megasthenes, who wrote of India, would not allow that Semiramis was ever in those[922]parts. Arrian seems to speak of it as a groundless[923]surmise. Her building of Babylon was by[924]Berosus treated as a fable. Herennius Philo maintained, that it was built by a son of Belus the wise, two thousand years before her[925]birth. Suidas says, that she called Nineve[926]Babylon: so uncertain is every circumstance about this Heroine. She is supposed to have sent to Cyprus, and Phenicia, for artists to construct and manage the ships abovementioned; as if there had been people in those parts famous for navigation before the foundation of Nineve. They sometimes give to Semiramis herself the merit of building the[927]first ship; and likewise the invention of weaving cotton: and another invention more extraordinary, which was that of emasculating[928]men, that they might be guardians, and overseers in her service. Yet, it is said of her, that she took a man to her bed every night, whom she put to death in the morning. How can it be imagined, if she was a woman of such unbridled[929]lust, that she would admit such spies upon her actions? We may as well suppose, that a felon would forge his own gyves, and construct his own prison. Claudian thinks, that she did it to conceal her own sex, by having a set of beardless people about her.
[930]Seu prima Semiramis astuAssyriis mentita virum, ne vocis acutæMollities, levesque genæ se prodere possent,Hos sibi junxisset socios: seu Parthica ferroLuxuries nasci vetuit lanuginis umbram;Servatosque diu puerili flore coegitArte retardatam Veneri servire juventam.
[930]Seu prima Semiramis astuAssyriis mentita virum, ne vocis acutæMollities, levesque genæ se prodere possent,Hos sibi junxisset socios: seu Parthica ferroLuxuries nasci vetuit lanuginis umbram;Servatosque diu puerili flore coegitArte retardatam Veneri servire juventam.
[930]Seu prima Semiramis astu
Assyriis mentita virum, ne vocis acutæ
Mollities, levesque genæ se prodere possent,
Hos sibi junxisset socios: seu Parthica ferro
Luxuries nasci vetuit lanuginis umbram;
Servatosque diu puerili flore coegit
Arte retardatam Veneri servire juventam.
In respect to Semiramis I do not see how this expedient could avail. She might just as well have dressed up her maids in mens clothes, and with less trouble. In short the whole of these histories in their common acceptation is to the last degree absurd, and improbable: but if we make use of an expedient, which I have often recommended, and for a person substitute a people, we shall find, when it is stripped of its false colouring, that there is much truth in the narration.
It was a common mode of expression to call a tribe or family by the name of its founder: and a nation by the head of the line. People are often spoken of collectively in the singular under such a patronymic. Hence we read in Scripture, that Israel abode in tents; that Judah was put to the worst in battle; that Dan abode in ships; and Asher remained on the sea-coast. The same manner of speaking undoubtedly prevailed both in Egypt, and in other countries: and Chus must have been often put for the Cuthites, or Cuseans; Amon for the Amonians; and Asur, or the Assyrian, for the people of Assyria. Hence, when it was said, that the Ninevite performed any great action, it has been ascribed to a person Ninus, the supposed founder of Nineve. And as none of the Assyrian conquests were antecedent to Pul, and Assur Adon, writers have been guilty of an unpardonable anticipation, in ascribing those conquests to the first king of the country. A like anticipation, amounting to a great many centuries, is to be found in the annals of the Babylonians. Every thing that was done in later times, has been attributed to Belus, Semiramis, and other, imaginary princes, who are represented as the founders of the kingdom. We may, I think, be assured, that under the character of Ninus, and Ninyas, we are to understand the Ninevites; as by Semiramis is meant a people called Samarim: and the great actions of these two nations are in the histories of these personages recorded. But writers have rendered the account inconsistent by limiting, what was an historical series of many ages, to the life of a single person. The Ninevites and Samarim did perform all that is attributed to Semiramis, and Ninus. They did conquer the Medes, and Bactrians; and extended their dominions westward as far as Phrygia, and the river Tanais, and to the Southward as far as Arabia, and Egypt. But these events were many ages after the foundation of the two kingdoms. They began under Pul of Nineve; and were carried on by Assur Adon, Salmanassur, Sennacherib, and other of his successors. Nineve was at last ruined, and the kingdom of Assyria was united with that of[931]Babylonia. This is probably alluded to in the supposed marriage of Semiramis and Ninus. Then it was, that the Samarim performed the great works attributed to them. For, exclusive of what was performed at Babylon;There are, says[932]Strabo,almost over the face of the whole earth, vast[933]mounds of earth, and walls, and ramparts, attributed to Semiramis; and in these are subterraneous passages of communication, and tanks for water, with staircases of stone. There are also vast canals to divert the course of rivers, and lakes to receive them; together with highways and bridges of a wonderful structure. They built the famous terraces at[934]Babylon; and those beautiful gardens at Egbatana, after that city had fallen into their hands. To them was owing that cruel device of emasculating their slaves, that their numerous wives, and concubines might be more securely guarded: an invention, which cannot consistently be attributed to a woman. They found out the art of weaving cotton: which discovery has by some been assigned to those of their family, who went into Egypt: for there were Samarim here too. In consequence of this, the invention has been attributed to a Semiramis, who is here represented as a man, and a king of the country: at least it is referred to his reign.[935]Επι τε Σεμιραμεως βασιλεως Αιγυπτιων τα βυσσινα ἱματια ἑυρησθαι ἱστορουσιν.The Samarim of Egypt and Babylonia, were of the same family, the sons of Chus. They came and settled among the Mizraim, under the name of the shepherds, of whose history I have often spoken. The reason of their being called Semarim, and Samarim, I shall hereafter disclose, together with the purport of the name, and the history, with which it is attended.
The celebrated Zoroaster seems to have been a personage as much mistaken, as any, who have preceded. The antients, who treated of him, have described him in the same foreign light, as they have represented Perseus, Dionusus, and Osiris. They have formed a character, which by length of time has been separated, and estranged, from the person, to whom it originally belonged. And as among the antients, there was not a proper uniformity observed in the appropriation of terms, we shall find more persons than one spoken of under the character of Zoroaster: though there was one principal, to whom it more truly related. It will be found, that not only the person originally recorded, and reverenced; but others, by whom the rites were instituted and propagated, and by whom they were in aftertimes renewed, have been mentioned under this title: Priests being often denominated from the Deity, whom they served.
Of men, styled Zoroaster, the first was a deified personage, reverenced by some of his posterity, whose worship was styled Magia, and the professors of it Magi. His history is therefore to be looked for among the accounts transmitted by the antient Babylonians, and Chaldeans. They were the first people styled Magi; and the institutors of those rites, which related to Zoroaster. From them this worship was imparted to the Persians, who likewise had their Magi. And when the Babylonians sunk into a more complicated idolatry, the Persians, who succeeded to the sovereignty of Asia, renewed under their Princes, and particularly under Darius, the son of Hystaspes, these rites, which had been, in a great degree, effaced, and forgotten. That king was devoted to the religion styled Magia[936]; and looked upon it as one of his most honourable titles, to be called a professor of those doctrines. The Persians were originally named Peresians, from the Deity Perez, or Parez the Sun; whom they also worshipped under the title of[937]Zor-Aster. They were at different æras greatly distressed and persecuted, especially upon the death of their last king Yesdegerd. Upon this account they retired into Gedrosia and India; where people of the same family had for ages resided. They carried with them some shattered memorials of their religion in writing, from whence the Sadder, Shaster, Vedam, and Zandavasta were compiled. These memorials seem to have been taken from antient symbols ill understood; and all that remains of them consists of extravagant allegories and fables, of which but little now can be decyphered. Upon these traditions the religion of the Brahmins and Persees is founded.
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 callsΠερσο-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.
Huetius takes notice of the various accounts in respect to his country.[962]Zoroastrem nunc Persam, nunc Medum ponit Clemens Alexandrinus; Persomedum Suidas; plerique Bactrianuni; alii Æthiopem, quos inter ait Arnobius ex Æthiopiâ interiore per igneam Zonam venisse Zoroastrem. In short, they have supposed a Zoroaster, wherever there was a Zoroastrian: that is, wherever the religion of the Magi was adopted, or revived. Many were called after him: but who among men was the Prototype can only be found out by diligently collating the histories, which have been transmitted. I mentionamong men; for the title originally belonged to the Sun; but was metaphorically bestowed upon sacred and enlightened personages. Some have thought that the person alluded to was Ham. He has by others been taken for Chus, also for Mizraim, and[963]Nimrod: and by Huetius for Moses. It may be worth while to consider the primitive character, as given by different writers. He was esteemed the first observer of the heavens; and it is said that the antient Babylonians received their knowledge in Astronomy from him: which was afterwards revived under Ostanes; and from them it was derived to the[964]Egyptians, and to the Greeks. Zoroaster was looked upon as the head of all those, who are supposed to have followed his[965]institutes: consequently he must have been prior to the Magi, and Magia, the priests, and worship, which were derived from him. Of what antiquity they were, may be learned from Aristotle.[966]Αριστοτελης δ' εν πρωτῳ περι φιλοσοφιας (τους Μαγους) και πρεσβυτερους ειναι των Αιγυπτιων.The Magi, according to Aristotle, were prior even to the Egyptians: and with the antiquity of the Egyptians, we are well acquainted. Plato styles him the son of[967]Oromazes, who was the chief Deity of the Persians: and it is said of him, that he laughed upon the day on which he was[968]born. By this I imagine, that something fortunate was supposed to be portended: some indication, that the child would prove a blessing to the world. In his childhood he is said to have been under the care of[969]Azonaces: which I should imagine was a name of the chief Deity Oromazes, his reputed father. He was in process of time greatly enriched with knowledge, and became in high repute for his[970]piety, and justice. He first sacrificed to the Gods, and taught men to do the[971]same. He likewise instructed them in science, for which he was greatly[972]famed: and was the first who gave them laws. The Babylonians seem to have referred to him every thing, which by the Egyptians was attributed to Thoth and Hermes. He had the title of[973]Zarades, which signifies the Lord of light, and is equivalent to Orus, Oromanes, and Osiris, It was sometimes expressed[974]Zar-Atis, and supposed to belong to a feminine Deity of the Persians. Moses Chorenensis styles him[975]Zarovanus, and speaks of him as the father of the Gods. Plutarch would insinuate, that he was author of the doctrine, embraced afterwards by the Manicheans, concerning two prevailing principles, the one good, and the other evil[976]: the former of these was named Oromazes, the latter Areimanius. But these notions were of late[977]date, in comparison of the antiquity which is attributed to[978]Zoroaster. If we might credit what was delivered in the writings transmitted under his name, which were probably composed by some of the later Magi, they would afford us a much higher notion of his doctrines. Or if the account given by Ostanes were genuine, it would prove, that there had been a true notion of the Deity transmitted from[979]Zoroaster, and kept up by the Magi, when the rest of the gentile world was in darkness. But this was by no means true. It is said of Zoroaster, that he had a renewal of[980]life: for I apply to the original person of the name, what was attributed to the Magus of Pamphylia: and it is related of him, that while he was in the intermediate state of death, he was instructed by the[981]Gods. Some speak of his retiring to a mountain of Armenia, where he had an intercourse with the[982]Deity: and when the mountain burned with fire, he was preserved unhurt. The place to which he retired, according to the Persic writers, was in the region called[983]Adarbain; where in aftertimes was the greatest Puratheion in Asia. This region was in Armenia: and some make him to have been born in the same country, upon one of the Gordiæan[984]mountains. Here it was, that he first instituted sacrifices, and gave laws to his followers; which laws are supposed to be contained in the sacred book named Zandavasta. To him has been attributed the invention of Magic; which notion has arisen from a misapplication of terms. The Magi Were priests, and they called religion in general Magia. They, and their rites, grew into disrepute; in consequence of which they were by the Greeks calledαπατεωνες, φαρμακευται:jugglers, and conjurers. But the Persians of old esteemed them very highly.[985]Μαγον, τον θεοσεβη, και θεολογον, και ἱερεα, ὁι Περσαι ὁυτως λεγουσιν.By a Magus, the Persians understand a sacred person, a professor of theology, and a Priest.Παρα Περσαις[986]Μαγοι ὁι φιλοσοφοι, και θεοφιλοι.Among the Persians, the Magi are persons addicted to philosophy, and to the worship of the Deity.[987]Dion. Chrysostom, and Porphyry speak to the same purpose. By Zoroaster being the author of Magia, is meant, that he was the first promoter of religious rites, and the instructor of men in their duty to God. The war of Ninus with Zoroaster of Bactria relates probably to some hostilities carried on between the Ninevites of Assyria, and the Bactrians, who had embraced the Zoroastrian rites. Their priest, or prince, for they were of old the same, was named[988]Oxuartes; but from his office had the title of Zoroaster; which was properly the name of the Sun, whom he adored. This religion began in Chaldea; and it is expressly said of this Bactrian king, that he borrowed the knowledge of it from that country, and added to it largely.[989]Cujus scientiæ sæculis priscis multa ex Chaldæorum arcanis Bactrianus addidit Zoroastres. When the Persians gained the empire in Asia, they renewed these rites, and doctrines.[990]Multa deinde (addidit) Hystaspes Rex prudentissimus, Darii pater. These rites were idolatrous; yet not so totally depraved, and gross, as those of other nations. They were introduced by Chus; at least by the Cuthites: one branch of whom were the Peresians, or Persians. The Cuthites of Chaldea were the original Magi, and they gave to Chus the title of Zoroaster Magus, as being the first of the order. Hence the account given by Gregorius Turonensis is in a great degree true.[991]Primogeniti Cham filii Noë fuit Chus. Hic ad Persas transiit, quem Persæ vocitavere Zoroastrem. Chus, we find, was called by this title; and from him the religion styled Magia passed to the Persians. But titles, as I have shewn, were not always determinately appropriated: nor was Chus the original person, who was called Zoroaster. There was another beyond him, who was the first deified mortal, and the prototype in this worship. To whom I allude, may, I think, be known from the history given above. It will not fail of being rendered very clear in the course of my procedure.
The purport of the term Zoroaster is said, by[992]the author of the Recognitions, and by others, to bethe living star: and they speak of it as if it were of Grecian etymology, and from the wordsζωονandαστηρ. It is certainly compounded of Aster, which, among many nations, signified a star. But, in respect to the former term, as the object of the Persic and Chaldaic worship was the Sun, and most of their titles were derived from thence; we may be pretty certain, that by Zoro-Aster was meant Sol Asterius. Zor, Sor, Sur, Sehor, among the Amonians, always related to the Sun. Eusebius says, that Osiris was esteemed the same as Dionusus, and the Sun: and that he was called[993]Surius. The region of Syria was hence denominatedΣυρια; and is at this day called Souria, from Sur, and Sehor, the Sun. The Dea Syria at Hierapolis was properly Dea Solaris. In consequence of the Sun's being called Sor, and Sur, we find that his temple is often mentioned under the name of[994]Beth-Sur, and[995]Beth-Sura, which Josephus renders[996]Βηθ-Σουρ. It was also called Beth-Sor, and Beth-Soron, as we learn from[997]Eusebius, and[998]Jerome. That Suria was not merely a provincial title is plain, from the Suria Dea being worshipped at Erix in[999]Sicily; and from an inscription to her at[1000]Rome. She was worshipped under the same title in Britain, as we may infer from an Inscription at Sir Robert Cotton's, of Connington, in Cambridgeshire.
Syria is called Sour, and Souristan, at this day.