[101] Sir William Jones says (Works, vol. III. p. 128): “It was he (Zoroaster)――not as Ammianus asserts, his protector, Gushtasp――who travelled in India, that he might receive information from the Brahmans in theology and ethics.” This is not to be found in the edition of Calcutta, nor in the manuscript of the Dabistán which D. Shea and myself have seen. [102] Mr. Eugène Burnouf, when he communicated to me his opinion upon the derivation of the word _Wasátir_ (see p. xxii), adverted incidentally to that of the term _Zand-Avesta_, interpreted sometimes “the _Zand_ and the _Usta_,” and said, that these words are found in perhaps a single passage of the books of Zoroaster, to wit, _huzanth vacha vaidhya cha_. These two words are applied to _mantras_ (prayers), and seem to signify “which will give life,” or “which are salutary to towns and nations,” and “which are learned.” We recognise the Sanscrit _sujantu_ and _vidya_. [103] See page 66. [104] See vol. I. p. 223. [105] See Memoirs of the life, writings, and correspondence of sir W. Jones, in his Works, vol. I. p. 190, 8vo., ed., 1807. [106] See works of sir W. J. vol. X. p. 403 _et seq._ [107] See Works of Sir W. J., vol. X. p. 403 _et seq._ [108] See works of sir W. J. pp. 413. 432. 437. [109] De Potter’s Transl. of Æschylus, Prometheus chained. In the Greek origin. v. 447-456. [110] Voltaire, whose genius sir W. Jones knew how to appreciate, said: “Glorifions-nous de ce que les vérités les plus importantes sont devenues des lieux communs pour les Européens, mais ne nous en moquons pas, et sachons avoir quelque reconnaissance pour les anciens legislateurs qui nous les ont, les premiers, appris.” [111] See Transact. of the R. A. S. of Great Brit. and Irel., vol. III. part I. p. 524 _et seq._ _Remarks on the Zand language and the Zand-Avesta._ This able tract is chiefly a comment upon Erskine’s Memoir _On the sacred book and religion of the Parsis_, in the Transact. of the Lit. Soc. of Bombay, vol. II. p. 295. [112] Sir W. J. says (see his Works, vol. III. p. 116) that, according to his conviction, the dialect of the Guebrs, which they pretend to be that of Zertusht, of which Bahman, a Guebr and his Persian reader, gave him a variety of written specimens, is a late invention of their priests. What language does he mean? certainly not that of the Zand-Avesta, of which he speaks in particular, and states (_ibid._, p. 118) “the language of the Zand was at least a dialect of the Sanscrit, approaching, perhaps, as nearly to it as the Prácrit, or other popular idioms, which we know to have been spoken in India two thousand years ago.” [113] Sir W. J.’s Works, vol. V. pp. 414-415.