Professor Rasr’s Remarks on the Zend Language. 527 
tradition, is said to have flourished ; where the sacred fires are produced 
by nature herself; where the chief seat of the fire-worship is known to have 
been, and in the name of which (Adarbaijdn) the old Zend word for fire 
(atars) is preserved to this very day, more than two thousand years after 
the extinction of its ancient power and glory. From all this, I think it 
may be fairly concluded that the author of the Farhang Jehdngiri was 
wholly ignorant of the ancient language of Media, which had been almost 
entirely supplanted before his time by the Tartar or Turkish; that he 
consequently proves nothing either pro or con; and that it may, for all he 
says or omits, as well have been the Zend as any thing else. 
After having observed that the Zend has been omitted in this preface, 
Mr. Erskine next proceeds (p. 299): ‘“ Indeed there seems no reason to 
believe that it ever was a spoken language within the limits of the Persian 
empire. It has every appearance of being foreign to Persia, and its use 
was probably confined to the sacred books of that country. There can be 
no doubt in what class of languages the Zend is to be ranked, it is altogether 
Sanscrit,” &c. &c. In opposition to others, I beg to observe, that the 
affinity between Sanscrit and Zend is by no means sufficient to establish the 
hypothesis that the Zend is an Indian dialect, never spoken any where in 
Persia; nor do I find any other sufficient argument for this assertion. The 
Greek, the Latin, and perhaps more than any European tongue, the 
Lithuanian, approach very nearly to Sanscrit ; yet the former have been, 
and the latter is, certainly spoken, and that at a great distance from India. 
Not to speak of the hypothesis formerly mentioned, that the Sanscrit, in 
times anterior to recorded history, probably had issued from Iran, and been 
spread over India by a conquering people, which would admirably account 
for the great resemblance of Zend and Sanscrit. The difference between 
the Pahlavi and Fursi, on one hand, and the Zend on the other, which Mr. 
Ersk1neE next alleges, equally fails in making good his hypothesis, because 
the Pahlavi and Farsi are not to be derived from the Zend. ‘The Medians 
and Persians were two distinct but co-existing nations; their languages 
therefore may naturally be supposed to have been two different but kindred 
dialects. The Pahlavi also was not spoken in Media, it originated at least 
at a considerable distance from this kingdom; so that it cannot be expected 
that one of these languages should contain all the roots of the other, espe- 
cially considering that all the remaining specimens of Zend are commonly 
supposed to have been written five hundred years Jefore the Christian era, and 
