II. PERSIANS ARE NOT BABYLONIANS

The Sacæa, according to all our authorities, was a Persian, not a

Babylonian, feast. We have not a tittle of evidence to show that the

Babylonians, with whom Zakmuk was a feast of old standing, ever heard

of the Sacæa before they were conquered by the Persians (B.C. 536).

Mr. Frazer admits this: the Babylonian custom, 'so far as appears from

our authorities, does not date from before the Persian conquest; but

probably it was much older.'[13] Why 'probably'? On the strength of

this 'probably' Mr. Frazer calls the doings at the Persian Sacæa 'a

Babylonian custom.'[14] It was a custom of the Persian conquerors of

Babylon, if we can believe Dio Chrysostom; but we have no evidence that

it was a Babylonian custom. Yet it 'has just got to be' a Babylonian

custom that Mr. Frazer may attach it to a vernal Babylonian feast,

Zakmuk, and so to Purim, and so to Eastertide.

Magic and Religion · 第 33 / 74 题