much pain and torment from him, as he had before. from the stone itself. Whilst he was in this condition, lord Somers hearing of his case, was pleased to express himself, that he thought Dr. Prideaux a person of greater value than to be so lost; and sent a message to Mr. Salter, reprimanding him for having taken so little care of him. This produced a letter from Mr. Salter to the dean, in which, he earnestly advised and desired him, to come to London to him; and accordingly the dean, finding no assistance to be had where he was, resolved on this journey; and for the conveniency of his travelling, contrived to take out all the seats of a large stage-coach, in which he laid his quilt and other bed clothes, and lying thereon at his full length, was carried to London, with as much ease and safety, as if he had been in a litter. When Mr. Salter came to him, and examined into his case, he found the urinary passage ripped up and destroyed, and every thing so miserably mangled and wounded, that he expressed no little wonder to find him alive after usage, which he thought would have killed any body else. Nothing now remained but to cure these wounds, which he did in about two months time, when the dean returned to Norwich again; but was ever after this, obliged to void his urine through an orifice, left in the place where the stone had been extracted, which was a great inconvenience to him all his life after.

On his return to Norwich, he again applied himself to his studies, which had been greatly interrupted by his unhappy distemper. The first thing he undertook after this, was to review his Directions to Churchwardens, upon the bookseller signifying to him, that he intended to print a third edition of that tract; and having made large additions to it, a third edition was printed and published in Michaelmas term, 1712.

Having finished this work, he went on with his Connexion of the History of the Old and New Testaments, which he had begun immediately upon his dropping the design of writing The History of Appropriations; but being interrupted by his disorder growing upon him, was obliged to lay it quite aside, till God should give him better health to enable him

to proceed in it; and having now, by his mercy, in some measure obtained this, he pursued his intention, and finished the first part in the year 1715, which was published in Michaelmas term following. The second part came out two years after in Hilary term, 1717–18. This work, at the end of the year 1720, had undergone eight editions in London, besides two or three printed at Dublin.* Little need be said of a book, which is so generally well known, and has been read by most persons of all ages, who delight in reading at all, as affording abundant matter for the instruction as well as entertainment of all sorts of persons. In a work of this kind, which is so extensive in its own nature, and collected from such variety of authors of different nations, ages, and languages, who so often contradict one another, where they speak of the same facts and persons, and sometimes themselves, it is not to be wondered at, if there are some mistakes; but much more so, that so few of these have hitherto been observed by the learned. The following letters, which were written in answer to some observations of this kind, sent him by his learned and ingenious friend and kinsman, Walter Moyle, Esq. will sufficiently testify, with what candour he treated such as differed from his opinions, and how ready he was to re-examine and correct any thing, that was thought amiss.

† DR. PRIDEAUX' FIRST LETTER TO MR. MOYLE. "Dear Cousin, I thank you for your kind letter, and the pains you have taken about my book. I should have been glad of so learned a friend near me, to whom I might have communicated this history before it was printed. But now three editions being published of it, your observations come too late to be of any use for the correcting of any thing, that is mistaken. However, I should be glad to have all that you have observed; and if I live to see a fourth edition, I shall be sure to examine all that you shall suggest to be amiss ; and as I shall see cause for it, make corrections accordingly.

*It has likewise been translated into the French and Italian languages. Vide Moyle's Works, printed at London, 1726, vol. ii.

"As to your first observation, concerning the East India trade, I perceive, my good cousin has not observed, that all that I say of it, is of the trade by sea, and not of the trade by land. I thought no reader would have understood it otherwise; but since you have, I shall in the second part, where I shall have occasion to speak of this matter again, put in such words, as shall prevent all misunderstanding of this matter.

"As to what you wrote of Zoroastres, I am of nothing more sure in ancient history, than that he was never king of Bactria, or any other than a juggling impostor; and that the time of his flourishing was in the time of Darius Hystaspes: and all the Greeks, that say any thing to the purpose, agree in this time. For his being king of Bactria, and his making war with Ninus, there is no authority but that of Justin's, and those who have wrote from him. All the Greeks speak otherwise of him, and some give him a very fabulous antiquity. But since you desire only to have it proved to you, that he was not ancienter than the time of Darius Hystaspes, I will send you no farther, than to the place in the proem to Diogenes Laertius, which I have quoted: there the successors of Zoroastres being named, Ostanes is reckoned the first of them, and he came into Greece with Xerxes. Suidas calls him Περσομηδης ; but there were no Persomedians before Cyrus united Media and Persia together. Suidas, I confess, is no old author, but his collection is made out of those, that were so; and many of those he used are now lost. That he is made contemporary with Pythagoras, is another reason for the same thing. That passage, which you refer to in Arnobius, if it proves any thing, it proves him to be contemporary with Cyrus. And Apuleius, placing him in the time of Cambyses sufficiently shows, that there was then an opinion, that he lived about that time: and putting all this together, I think it is not to be doubted, but that when others call Zabratus, Zaratus, Zaras, Zaroes, Nazaratus, &c. is the same with Zoroastres, the character of the person, as well as the similitude of the names, proving this opinion. Perchance Porphyrius might think Zabratus and Zoroastres to be two differ

ent persons; but this doth not prove them so, Porphyry living many hundreds of years after. All that I aim to prove by these testimonies is, that the best. evidence we have from among the Greeks and Latins for the time of Zoroastres, placeth him about the time where I have put him. But as to the exact chronology of all his actions (which is not to be found in this or any other matter among the ancient Greeks) I acknowledge, I follow the eastern writers, whose books are all full of him, and that not from oral tradition, as you suppose, but ancient authors. The Arabs indeed had no learning till after the time of Mahomet; but the Persians had; and from very ancient times. And therefore I believe no Arab author as to this matter, any farther than he writes from the Persians; and if the Persians have writings of this matter of above two thousand years standing, why should not they be believed as well as Herodotus or Thucydides? Zoroastres' own books are still extant among the Magians in Persia, and India; and from them are all the accounts, that in the East are given of him. And his books being of the same sacred regard among them as the Alcoran is among the Mahometans, it is not hard to conceive they should be preserved with the same care. As to Texeita, it is not a translation, but a short abstract of Emir Conda's Persian History; that history is ten times as big. And though that author should say nothing of Zoroastres, or Zerdusht, as they call him, this would not prove there was no such person, any more than if the contested passage in Josephus was given up concerning our Saviour, it would prove, that there was no such person as Jesus Christ, because then there would be no mention of him in that history. If there be no mention of Zerdusht in Emir Conda, a good reason may be given for it. Emir Conda was a Persian Mahometan, and with them nothing can be in greater contempt than the Magians are in Persia; and that might be cause enough for him not to take notice, either of them or their prophet.

"I beg your pardon, I have not time to go over all your papers; others, as well as you, call for the second part of my history; and being now in the last

scene of my life, and almost at the end of that, I have little time to spare from this work; which for the gratifying of you and others, I would gladly finish before I die; but if I live to finish it, and another edition should be published of the first part, I will then thoroughly examine all that you shall offer, but think my opinion, as to the time of Zoroastres, to be too well founded ever to be altered by me.

Norwich, Oct. 14, 1716.

I am, &c."

SECOND LETTER.

"Dear Cousin, I have received more of your papers: to answer fully all that you object, would require a volume, which I have not time or strength to do, being almost worn out by infirmity, caused by the calamity I have suffered, and my advanced age, as being now just upon the seventieth year of my life. This hath so far broken me, as to confine me wholly to my house, and mostly to my chamber. Only since you press particularly about the 'Avalos, my answer is, that Xenophon was not the author of that book, but Themistogenes of Syracuse. This Xenophon himself says, in the beginning of the third book of his Hellenics. If you please to consult Usher's Annals, sub Anno, J. P. 4313, you will find this there more fully made out. I have indeed quoted that book under the name of Xenophon, because of the common opinion, which every where attributes it to him; but I think the truth is otherwise. I perceive you hang much upon the matter of Zoroastres: but all that you object is built upon mistakes: if you do not place him where I have, where else will you place him? Will you put him with Plutarch five thousand years before the wars of Troy; or with others six thousand years before the time of Plato? Others indeed reduce the thousands to hundreds; but all is fable, for the ancients much affected a fabulous antiquity for all they relate. They, who put things latest, are generally nearest the truth. It is easy in all such matters to make objections for pulling down; but then you ought to build up better in their stead. I write with a paralytical hand, which makes writing difficult to me; for which I also need your pardon. I am, &c.'

Norwich, Jan. 30, 1716.