"As to your first observation, concerning the East India trade, I perceive, my good cousin has not ob served, that all that I say of it, is of the trade by sea, and not of the trade by land. I thought no reader would have understood it otherwise; but since you have, I shall in the second part, where I shall have occasion to speak of this matter again, put in such words, as shall prevent all misunderstanding of this matter.

"

"As to what you wrote of Zoroastres, I am of nothing more sure in ancient history, than that he was never king of Bactria, or any other than a juggling impostor; and that the time of his flourishing was in the time of Darius Hystaspes: and all the Greeks, that say any thing to the purpose, agree in this time. For his being king of Bactria, and his making war with Ninus, there is no authority but that of Justin's, and those who have wrote from him. All the Greeks speak otherwise of him, and some give him a very fabulous antiquity. But since you desire only to have it proved to you, that he was not ancienter than the time of Darius Hystaspes, I will send you no farther, than to the place in the proem to Diogenes Laertius, which I have quoted: there the successors of Zoroastres being named, Ostanes is reckoned the first of them, and he came into Greece with Xerxes. Suidas calls him Περσομ'ηδης ; but there were no Persomedians before Cyrus united Media and Persia together. Suidas, I confess, is no old author, but his collection is made out of those, that were so; and many of those he used are now lost. That he is made contemporary with Pythagoras, is another reason for the same thing. That passage, which you refer to in Arnobius, if it proves any thing, it proves him to be contemporary with Cyrus. And Apuleius, placing him in the time of Cambyses sufficiently shows, that there was then an opinion, that he lived about that time: and putting all this together, I think it is not to be doubted, but that when others call Zabratus, Zaratus, Zaras, Zaroes, Nazaratus, &c. is the same with Zoroastres, the character of the person, as well as the similitude of the names, proving this opinion. Perchance Porphyrius might think Zabratus and Zoroastres to be two differ

1

ent persons; but this doth not prove them so, Porphyry living many hundreds of years after. All that I aim to prove by these testimonies is, that the best evidence we have from among the Greeks and Latins for the time of Zoroastres, placeth him about the time where I have put him. But as to the exact chronology of all his actions (which is not to be found in this or any other matter among the ancient Greeks) I acknowledge, I follow the eastern writers, whose books are all full of him, and that not from oral tradition, as you suppose, but ancient authors. The Arabs indeed had no learning till after the time of Mahomet; but the Persians had; and from very ancient times. And therefore I believe no Arab author as to this matter, any farther than he writes from the Persians; and if the Persians have writings of this matter of above two thousand years standing, why should not they be believed as well as Herodotus or Thucydides? Zoroastres' own books are still extant among the Magians in Persia, and India; and from them are all the accounts, that in the East are given of him. And his books being of the same sacred regard among them as the Alcoran is among the Mahometans, it is not hard to conceive they should be preserved with the same care. As to Texeita, it is not a translation, but a short abstract of Emir Conda's Persian History; that history is ten times as big. And though that author should say nothing of Zoroastres, or Zerdusht, as they call him, this would not prove there was no such person, any more than if the contested passage in Josephus was given up concerning our Saviour, it would prove, that there was no such person as Jesus Christ, because then there would be no mention of him in that history. If there be no mention of Zerdusht in Emir Conda, a good reason may be given for it. Emir Conda was a Persian Mahometan, and with them nothing can be in greater contempt than the Magians are in Persia; and that might be cause enough for him not to take notice, either of them or their prophet.

"I beg your pardon, I have not time to go over all your papers; others, as well as you, call for the second part of my history; and being now in the last

scene of my life, and almost at the end of that, I have little time to spare from this work; which for the gratifying of you and others, I would gladly finish before I die; but if I live to finish it, and another edition should be published of the first part, I will then thoroughly examine all that you shall offer, but think my opinion, as to the time of Zoroastres, to be too well founded ever to be altered by me.

Norwich, Oct. 14, 1716.

I am, &c."

SECOND LETTER.

"Dear Cousin, I have received more of your papers: to answer fully all that you object, would require a volume, which I have not time or strength to do, being almost worn out by infirmity, caused by the calamity I have suffered, and my advanced age, as being now just upon the seventieth year of my life. This hath so far broken me, as to confine me wholly to my house, and mostly to my chamber. Only since you press particularly about the 'Avabaois, my answer is, that Xenophon was not the author of that book, but Themistogenes of Syracuse. This Xenophon himself says, in the beginning of the third book of his Hellenics. If you please to consult Usher's Annals, sub Anno, J. P. 4313, you will find this there more fully made out. I have indeed quoted that book under the name of Xenophon, because of the common opinion, which every where attributes it to him; but I think the truth is otherwise. I perceive you hang much upon the matter of Zoroastres: but all that you object is built upon mistakes: if you do not place him where I have, where else will you place him? Will you put him with Plutarch five thousand years before the wars of Troy; or with others six thousand years before the time of Plato? Others indeed reduce the thousands to hundreds; but all is fable, for the ancients much affected a fabulous antiquity for all they relate. They, who put things latest, are generally nearest the truth. It is easy in all such matters to make objections for pulling down; but then you ought to build up better in their stead. I write with a paralytical hand, which makes writing difficult to me; for which I also need your pardon. I am, &c."

Norwich, Jan. 30, 1716.

THIRD LETTER.

"Dear Cousin, Though my hand be almost past writing, as you will sufficiently see by this letter, yet I cannot omit thanking you for the kindness of your last. I hope ere this you have received my book. I am sure it will no where find a more observing and judicious reader than yourself. I had sufficient experience of this in your learned remarks on the former part. They have instructed me for the making some alterations against another edition; but however, I cannot recede from placing the Zoroastres, who was Zerdusht of the Persians, and the author of the book, Zundaveston (which is the Bible of the Magians) in that very age, where my book has placed him. To say otherwise would be to contradict all the ancient histories of the Persians, and the general tradition of all the East. What you object out of Xanthus Lydius, who lived in that very age, in which I place Zoroastres, looks like an unanswerable argument, it being by no means likely, that this author should assert Zoroastres to have lived six hundred years before the expedition of Xerxes, if he was his contemporary. One answer hereto is, the history, that in the time of Diogenes Laertius went under the name of Xanthus Lydius, was none of his, but written by Dionysius Scytobrachion, who lived a little before the time of Tully and Julius Cæsar. This Athenæus tells us, lib. XII. and quotes for it Artemon Cassandreus, who wrote a treatise on purpose to make a distinction of the genuine authors from the spurious, which were then extant. But I am rather apt to think with Pliny, (lib. XXX. c. 1.) that there were two Zoroastres, the elder of which was the founder of the Magian sect, and the other the reformer; and that this latter was the Zerdusht of the Persians, and lived in the time where I have placed him. Pliny, in the chapter last quoted, tells us of a Zoroastres, who lived but a little before (paulo ante hunc, are his words) that Ostanes, who came with Xerxes into Greece. Plato, in the tenth book of his Politics, spoke of a Zoroastres, who was Herus Armenius a Pamphylian. This same was the Armenius Pamphilus, who, Arnobius tells us, was

familiarly acquainted with Cyrus. (See Clem. Alex. Strom. V. p. 436, Edit. Hins. Arnob. lib. I. p. 31.) I acknowledge the passage in Arnobius is very dark; but if it signifies any thing, it must signify thus much, that there was a Zoroastres, who lived in the time of Cyrus. I may add hereto, that the antiquity, which most of the ancients among the Greeks and Latins attribute to Zoroastres, is notoriously fabulous, as that of five thousand years before the wars of Troy, and another of six thousand years before the times of Plato, &c. In most pretences to antiquity, it may go for a general rule, that they, who say the latest, say the truest. As to your other objection against Alexander's having been at Jerusalem, the place you refer to in Pliny, manifestly makes against you; for the words there plainly prove, that Alexander was then at Jericho, when that incision was made in the balsam trees, which he makes mention of; otherwise these words, Alexandro Magno res ibi gerente, would be very impertinently inserted; and if he were at Jericho, he could not go from thence to Gaza, without taking Jerusalem in his way. The words in Pliny to me plainly imply that Alexander was at Jericho, when that incision was made, and that it was made at that time for his sake, to gather some of the balsam. That an extraordinary providence has always attended that people for their preservation is manifest. That they are now in being, is a sufficient proof hereof. I am, &c."

Norwich, July 10, 1718.

FOURTH LETTER.

"Dear Cousin, I do most heartily thank you for your kind letter, especially for the observations, which you have sent me of my mistakes in the last part of my history. I must confess that about Octavius' posterity is a very great one. It is a downright blunder of my old head; and I am glad so accurate and learned a reader has not observed more of them. This makes me hope that no more such have escaped me. I have mended this and all the others you have taken notice of; only I cannot make Sòcrates a Sodomite. The place in Juvenal, which you mention, reflects on him