A difference, however, breaks out amongst those partners, which seems to sever the prospects of their _metallic_ union. It is, that though each would make _iron_ to be the substratum of their respective hobbies, yet would _my namesake_ have his so called as _abounding_ therein; whereas, the _professor_, who betrays a respectable insight into geology, and fearing that the womb of _Persia_ could not conceive so hard an ore, wishes us at once to believe that it acquired its _ancient_ epithet from the _fixedness_ of that metal; and thus would one _ex abundantiâ_, and the other _ex similitudine_, have the common name of _Iran_ for Ireland and for Persia be derived from an _English_ word, which was not concocted for many centuries after the _decay_ of those two regions, when the very metal it represented first grew into use![142] “Moullah Feroze, an excellent Palahvi scholar, tells me,” says Sir John Malcolm, “that _Iran_ is the plural of _Eir_, and means _the country of believers_.” And again, when he had occasion to consult his oracle, he states the answer as follows:-- “I gave this inscription[143] to Moullah Feroze, a learned priest of the Parsees, at Bombay, and he assured me that the translation of De Sacy was correct. Feroze explained the word _An-Iran_ to mean _unbelievers_. _Eer_, he informed me, was a Pehlivi word, which signified _believer_; _Eeran_ was its plural: in Pehlivi, the _a_ or _an_ prefixed is a privative, as in Greek or Sanscrit; and consequently, _An-Eeran_ meant _unbelievers_. The king of _Eeran_ and _An-Eeran_ he interpreted to mean king of _believers_ and _unbelievers_; _of_ Persia and other nations. It was, he said, a title like king of the world. This however,” adds Sir John, of himself, “is like all _conjectures_ founded on etymology, very uncertain.” It was natural enough that Sir John should express himself slightingly as to a mode of proof, the principle of which he must have seen violated in so many instances; and, independently of this, it is an infirmity in human nature to affect disregard for any knowledge which we do not ourselves understand. I do not mean, however, to vindicate Feroze’s interpretation; on the contrary, I purpose to show that it is not only _imperfect_, but _incorrect_; yet while doing so, I am bound to acknowledge, that, if he has not hit off the whole truth, he has a part of it; and even _this_ is such a treat, in the wilderness through which we have been groping for some time back, that I welcome it as an _oasis_, and offer him my thanks thus beforehand.