Essay on the Sacred Fire and on the Vestals

whom they called Zerduft original: "Zerduft," a variant of Zarathustra or Zoroaster. One did not dare to give a denial to the Persians on a point as important to their history, which they reasonably ought to know as well as the Greeks; but one did not wish to abandon the first Zoroaster for that reason; it was preferred to create a second one; the Greeks, on this occasion, were of marvelous assistance. Thus, two Zoroasters were created: one the author of Magism The system of the Magi, the hereditary priestly class of ancient Persia, an Assyrian and contemporary of Ninus; the other the Restorer of this cult, and a Persian, contemporary of Darius son of Hystaspes. It would not have been difficult for them to make a third and a fourth; their guarantors, the Greeks, had provided for it. It is undoubtedly this number which has given rise to those ridiculous opinions which have caused Zoroaster to be sought in Abraham and in Moses.

It appears clear that these two Zoroasters form but a single man, and that it is to the Persians one must recur to know his history. The Book of Zerduft still exists; he does not announce himself therein as the founder, but as the restorer of the Religion; this is consistent with what the Oriental Authors say of it, and it is a reason to rely upon them by preference.

They make him appear under the reign of Gushtasp, who is the same as the Darius of whom I have just spoken. They claim that he was born a Jew, or at least that he passed his early youth

in Judea, in the service of a Prophet. One fully expects that this part of his life has occasioned curious research; people have wanted to discover who this Prophet was; he has been found successively in Elijah, in Ezra, in some of the disciples of Jeremiah; Prideaux Humphrey Prideaux (1648–1724), an English theologian and author of "The Old and New Testament Connected" rejects Elijah and Ezra, the one because he is too ancient, the other because he is too modern, and settles on Daniel; Doctor Hyde Thomas Hyde (1636–1703), an English orientalist and author of "Veterum Persarum et Magorum Religionis Historia" prefers Ezra. The Mohammedans relate a little anecdote which, if it were true, could determine what one ought to believe amidst this diversity of opinions. They say that Zerduft committed a fraud against the Prophet he served, that the latter prayed to God to strike him with leprosy, and that this prayer was answered. In this case, Zerduft might well have been the servant of Elisha A reference to the biblical story of Gehazi, the servant of Elisha who was cursed with leprosy for his greed.

Grave Authors have adopted this conjecture; but the authority upon which it is founded does not appear to me to be irrefutable. The Muslims hate the Fire-worshippers; they may have wished to bring contempt upon the Legislator of the latter by attributing to him a fraud, which would not be very becoming in a man of his character. The evil spoken by an enemy must not be believed without examination; this examination is impossible here; it is better to attach oneself to no sentiment than to adopt one whose foundation is suspected of calumny; besides, what does it matter?