﻿ON THE PERSIANS. 6l 



ir in the modern Persian writings of several who pro- 

 fessed it. Bahman always named Zeratusht with re- 

 verence, but he was in truth a pure Theist, and 

 strongly disclaimed any adoration of the fire or other 

 elements : he denied that the doctrine of two coeval 

 principles, supremely good and supremely bad, form- 

 ed any part of his faith ; and he often repeated with 

 emphasis the verses of Firdausi on the prostration of 

 Cyrus and his paternal grandfather before the blazing 

 altar: "Think not that they were adorers of fire j 

 " for that element was only an exalted object, on the 

 " lustre of which they fixed their eyes; they humbled 

 Ct themselves a whole week before God; and, if thy 

 " understanding be ever so little exerted, thou must 

 IC acknowledge thy dependence on the Being supreme- 

 '* ly pure." In a story of Sadi, near the close of his 

 beautiful Bustan, concerning the idol of Somanath, or 

 Mahadeva, he confounds the religion of the Hindus 

 with that of the Gabrs, calling the Brahnans not only 

 Moghs, (which might be justified by a passage in the 

 Mesnavi) but even readers of the Zend and Pa^end. 

 Now, whether this confusion proceeded from real or 

 pretended ignorance I cannot decide, but am as 

 firmly convinced that the doctrines of the Zend were 

 distinct from those of the J'eda, as I am that the reli- 

 gion of the Brahmans, with whom we converse every 

 day, prevailed in Persia before the accession of Cayu* 

 titers, whom the Parsis, from respect to his memory, 

 consider as the first of men, although they believe in 

 an universal deluge before his reign, 



With the religion of the old Persians their phi- 

 losophy (or as much as we know rf it) was inci- 

 mately connected ; for they were assiduous observ- 

 er, of the luminaries, which they adored and esta- 

 blished, according to Mohsan, who confirms in some 

 degree the fragments of Bercsics, a number ot arci- 



