309 
p. 208.] I hope that the subject will be again taken up by some member 
of the Institute. 
Mr. Macdonell. — I am much pleased to hear the remarks of the last 
speaker. I think that two of the previous speakers have not done sufficient 
justice to this remarkable and interesting paper, one that evidently con- 
tains the result of very great information and research,— a paper that ought 
not to be treated in a light manner. It is full of other persons’ thoughts, and 
containing authorities that are not within the reach of most people. It gives 
extracts from literature of a most interesting character, and quotes novel 
and beautiful poetry. Now, it seems to me that the paper is not open to 
the observations made by the first speaker. So far as I can gather from 
the statements that were made, there was no such feeling as he referred to 
running through the paper at all. On the contrary, frequent allusions were 
made in the paper by which we were reminded of the superiority of the 
Scriptures. So far as I understand the paper, it goes to show that, even in 
early times, there was a groping after some form of monotheism. This of 
itself would be a most valuable result. Having said so much in praise of 
the paper, may I be permitted to put one or two questions to the lecturer ? 
I was curious to see what opinion the lecturer had arrived at as to the 
precise age at which Zoroaster lived. At page 247 he states that Endocos and 
Aristotle placed Zoroaster 6,000 years before the time of Plato, and 
Hermippos placed the age of Zoroaster 5,000 years before the Trojan war ; 
while another authority, Masudi, gives another date, namely B.O. 600. 
Mr. Brown himself arrived at a fourth opinion, which was somewhat different. 
With respect to the ground upon which he arrived at that opinion, or, in 
fact, the grounds upon which he has arrived at any of his opinions, I 
think there is room for further enlightenment. It is one thing to know 
when Zoroaster lived, and it is another, almost as important, to know whether 
he lived at all ; and I think this is fairly open to doubt. At page 248 we 
have the opinion of Sir H. Eawlinson, to the effect that Zoroaster was 
“ the personification of the old heresionym of the Scythic race.” At the same 
page we have the opinion of a learned foreigner, M. Darmesteter, who 
regards Zoroaster as “ one of the many bright powers of heaven who fight in 
an almost endless strife against the powers of darkness and evil and at page 
249 we have the statement of Mr. Brown himself that the question whether 
Zoroaster lived or not is of comparatively little importance. Then, further 
on, it is said that Zoroaster might be regarded as the founder of a religion and 
as one who was essentially a reformer ; and, if so, I suppose that at some time 
or other he lived. I should like to know from Mr. Brown whether there are 
any solid grounds for believing that Zoroaster was an historical personage, or 
whether Zoroaster is merely the name in which were included a vast number 
of religious reformers and teachers, perhaps of different ages ? There is 
another remark I should like to make. I would venture to ask whether the 
method of inquiry pursued by the lecturer in the latter portion of the paper 
is a method of inquiry that is likely to result in really sound conclusions ? 
It seemed to me that the mode of reasoning which he followed was one which 
