APPENDIX - Zoroaster, the Head of the Fire-Worshippers
That Zoroaster was head of the fire-worshippers, the
following, among other evidence, may prove. Not to mention that
the name Zoroaster is almost a synonym for a fire-worshipper, the
testimony of Plutarch is of weight: "Plutarchus agnoscit
Zoroastrem apud Chaldaeos Magos instituisse, ad quorum
imitationem Persae etiam sus habuerunt. * Arabica quoque Historia
(ab Erpenio edita) tradit Zaradussit non primum instituisse. sed
reformasse religionem Persarum et Magorum, qui divisi erant in
plures sectas" (Clericus, lib. i. De Chaldaeis, sect.
i. cap. 2, vol. ii. p. 195); "Plutarch acknowledges that
Zoroaster among the Chaldeans instituted the Magi, in imitation
of whom the Persians also had their (Magi). The Arabian History
also (edited by Erpenius) relates that Zaradussit, or Zerdusht,
did not for the first time institute, but (only) reform the
religion of the Persians and Magi, who had been divided into many
sects." The testimony of Agathias is to the same
effect. He gives it as his opinion that the worship of fire came
from the Chaldeans to the Persians, lib. ii. cap. 25, pp. 118,
119. That the Magi among the Persians were the guardians of "the
sacred and eternal fire" may be assumed from Curtius
(lib. iii. cap.3, pp. 41, 42), who says that fire was carried
before them "on silver altars; from the statement of
Strabo (Geograph., lib. xv. p. 696), that "the Magi kept
upon the altar a quantity of ashes and an immortal fire," and
of Herodotus (lib. i. p. 63), that "without them, no
sacrifice could be offered." The fire-worship was an
essential part of the system of the Persian Magi (WILSON, Parsee
Religion, pp. 228-235). This fire-worship the Persian Magi did
not pretend to have invented; but their popular story carried the
origin of it up to the days of Hoshang, the father of Tahmurs,
who founded Babylon (WILSON, pp. 202, 203, and 579)---i.e., the
time of Nimrod. In confirmation of this, we have seen that a
fragment of Apollodorus (Muller, 68) makes Ninus the head of the
fire-worshippers. Layard, quoting this fragment, supposes Ninus
to be different from Zoroaster (Nineveh and its Remains, vol. ii.
p. 443, Note); but it can be proved, that though many others bore
the name of Zoraster, the lines of evidence all converge, so as
to demonstrate that Ninus and Nimrod and Zoroaster were one. The
legends of Zoroaster show that he was known not only as a Magus,
but as a Warrior (ARNOBIUS, lib. i. p. 327). Plato says that Eros
Armenius (whom CLERICUS, De Chaldaeis, states, vol. ii. p. 195,
to have been the same as the fourth Zoroaster) died and rose
again after ten days, having been killed battle; and that what he
pretended to have learned in Hades, he communicated to men in his
new life (PLATO, De Republica, lib x. vol. ii. p.614). We have
seen the death of Nimrod, the original Zoroaster, was not that of
a warrior slain in battle; but yet this legend of the warrior
Zoroaster is entirely in favour of the supposition that the
original Zoroaster, the original Head of the Magi, was not a
priest merely, but a warrior-king. Everywhere are the
Zoroastrians, or fire-worshippers, called Guebres or Gabrs. Now,
Gen. x. 8 proves that Nimrod was the first of the "Gabrs."
As Zoroaster was head of the fire-worshippers, so Tammuz was
evidently the same. We have seen evidence already that
sufficiently proves the identity of Tammuz and Nimrod; but a few
words may still more decisively prove it, and cast further light
on the primitive fire-worship. 1. In the first
place, Tammuz and Adonis are proved to be the same divinity.
Jerome, who lived in Palestine when the rites of Tammuz were
observed, up to the very time when he wrote, expressly identifies
Tammuz and Adonis (vol. ii. p.353), in his Commentary on Ezekiel,
viii. 14, where the Jewish women are represented as weeping for
Tammuz; and the testimony of Jerome on this subject is
universally admitted. Then the mode in which the rites of Tammuz
or Adonis were celebrated in Syria was essentially the same as
the rites of Osiris. The statement of Lucian (De Dea Syria, vol.
iii. p. 454) strikingly shows this, and Bunsen (vol. i. p. 443)
distinctly admits it. The identity of Osiris and Nimrod has been
largely proved in the body of this work. When, therefore, Tammuz
or Adonis is identified with Osiris, the identification of Tammuz
with Nimrod follows of course. And then this entirely agrees with
the language of Bion, in his Lament for Adonis, where he
represents Venus as going in a frenzy of grief, like a Bacchant,
after the death of Adonis, through the woods and valleys,
and"calling upon her Assyrian husband" (BION, Idyll,
Id. i. v. 214, in Portae Minores Graeci, p. 304). It equally
agrees with statement of Maimonides, that when Tammuz was put to
death, the grand scene of weeping for that death was in the
temple of Babylon(see ante, p. 62). 2. Now, if
Tammuz was Nimrod, the examination of the meaning of the name
confirms the connection of Nimrod with the first fire-worship.
After what has already been advanced, there needs no argument to
show that, as the Chaldeans were the first who introduced the
name and power or kings (SYNCELLUS, vol. i. p. 169), and as
Nimrod was unquestionably the first of these kings, and the
first, consequently, that bore the title of Moloch, or king, so
it was in honour of him that the "children were made to
pass through the fire" was undoubtedly to purify. The
name Tammuz has evidently reference to this, for it signifies "to
perfect," that is, "to purify" * "by
fire;" and if Nimrod was, as the Paschal Chronicle
(vol. i. pp. 50, 51), and the general voice of antiquity,
represent him to have been, the originator of fire-worship, this
name very exactly expresses his character in that respect. It is
evident, however, from the Zoroastrian verse, elsewhere quoted
(ante, p. 245), that fire itself was worshipped as Tammuz, for it
is called the "Father that perfected all things."
In one respect this represented fire as the Creative god; but in
another, there can be no doubt that it had reference to the "perfection"
of men by "purifying" them. And especially it
perfected those whom it consumed. This was the very idea that,
from time immemorial until very recently, led so many widows in
India to immolate themselves on the funeral piles of their
husbands, the woman who thus burned herself being counted
blessed, because she became Suttee * --i.e., "Pure by
burning." And this also, no doubt, reconciled the
parents who actually sacrificed their children to Moloch, to the
cruel sacrifice, the belief being cherished that the fire that
consumed them also "perfected" them, and made
them meet for eternal happiness. As both the passing through the
fire, and the burning in the fire, were essential rites in the
worship of Moloch or Nimrod, this is an argument that Nimrod was
Tammuz. As the priest and representative of the perfection or
purifying by fire, and so he was called by its name.
When we turn to the legends of India, find evidence to the
very same effect as that which we have seen with regard to
Zoroaster and Tammuz as head of the fire-worshippers. The fifth
head of Brahma, that was cut of for inflicting distress on the
three worlds, by "effulgence of its dazzling beams,
" referred to in the text of this work, identifies
itself with Nimrod. The fact that that fifth head was represented
as having read the Vedas, or sacred books produced by the other
four heads, shows, I think, a succession. * Now, coming down from
Noah, what would that succession be? We have evidence from Berosus, that, in the days of
Belus--that is, Nimrod--the custom
of making representations like that of two-headed Janus, had
begun. * Assume, then, that Noah, as having lived in two worlds,
has his two heads. Ham is the third, Cush the forth, and Nimrod
is, of course, the fifth. And this fifth head was cut off for
doing the very thing for which Nimrod actually was cut off. I
suspect that this Indian myth is the key to open up the meaning
of a statement of Plutarch, which, according to the terms of it,
as it stands, is visibly absurd. It is as follows: Plutarch (in
the forth book of his Symposiaca, Quaest. 5, vol. ii. p. 570, B)
says that "the Egyptians were of the opinion that
darkness was prior to light, and that the latter [viz., light]
was produced from mice, in the fifth generation, at the time of
the new moon." In India, we find that "a new
moon" was produced in a different sense from the
ordinary meaning of that term, and that the production of that
new moon was not only important in Indian mythology, but
evidently agreed in time with the period when the fifth head of
Brahma scorched the world with its insufferable splendour. The
account of its production runs thus: that the gods and mankind
were entirely discontented with the moon which they gad got, "because
it gave no light," and besides the plants were poor and
the fruits of no use, and that therefore they churned the White
sea [or, as it is commonly expressed, "they churned the
ocean"], when all things were mingled--i.e., were
thrown into confusion, and that then a new moon, with a new
regent, was appointed, which brought in an entirely new system of
things (Asiatic Researches, vol. ix. p. 98). From MAURICE'S
Indian Antiquities (vol. ii. sect. 6, pp. 264-266), we learn that
at this very time of the churning of the ocean, the earth was set
on fire, and a great conflagration was the result. But the name
of the moon in India is Soma, or Som (for the final a is only a
breathing, and the word is found in the name of the famous temple
of Somnaut, which name signifies "Lord of the
Moon"), and the moon in India is male. As this
transaction is symbolical, the question naturally arises, who
could be meant by the moon, or regent of the moon, who was cast
off in the fifth generation of the world? The name Some shows at
once who he must have been. Some is just the name of Shem; for
Shem's name comes from Shom, "to appoint," and
is legitimately represented either by the name Som, or Sem, as it
is in Greek; and it was precisely to get rid of Shem (either
after his father's death, or when the infirmities of old age were
coming upon him) as the great instructor of the world, that is,
as the great diffuser of spiritual light, that in the fifth
generation the world was thrown into confusion and the earth set
on fire. The propriety of Shem's being compared to the moon will
appear if we consider the way in which his father Noah was
evidently symbolised. The head of a family is divinely compared
to the sun, as in the dream of Joseph (Genesis xxxvii.9), and it
may be easily conceived how Noah would, by his posterity in
general, be looked up to as occupying the paramount place as the
Sun of the world; and accordingly Bryant, Davies, Faber, and
others, have agreed in recognising Noah as so symbolised by
Paganism. When, however, his younger son--for Shem was younger
than Japhet--(Genesis x. 21) was substituted for his father, to
whom the world had looked up in comparison of the "greater
light," Shem would naturally, especially by those who
disliked him and rebelled against him, be compared to "the
lesser light," or the moon. * Now, the production of
light by mice at this period, comes in exactly to confirm this
deduction. A mouse in Chaldee is "Aakbar"; and Gheber, or
Kheber, in Arabic, Turkish, and some of the other
eastern dialects, becomes "Akbar," as in the
well-known Moslem saying, "Allar Akbar," "God
is Great." So that the whole statement of Plutarch,
when stripped of its nonsensical garb, just amounts to this, that
light was produced by the nonsensical garb, just amounts to this,
that light was produced by the Guebres or fire-worshippers, when
Nimrod was set up in opposition to Shem, as the representative of
Noah, and the great enlightener of the world.
[ Back ] [ Up ] [ Next ]
|