The Barbarian Books

And if you hold on to their teaching, why do you fight with me for choosing the views I want? Is it not absurd that a robber is not punished for the name pinned on him until the truth about him has been carefully established, while you have hated us on an unexamined presumption picked up from slander? Diagoras was an Athenian, but you punished him for dancing the Athenian mysteries out into the open — and yet you read his Phrygian discourses and hate us. You own Leo’s memoirs and are annoyed at our exposures of them; you keep Apion’s opinions about the gods of Egypt in your own houses, and you denounce us as utter atheists. The tomb of Olympian Zeus is on show among you, whatever anyone says about the Cretans being liars. Your whole assembly of many gods amounts to nothing. And even if Epicurus, who despises them, carries the torch at their rites, I still hide nothing from the rulers about the understanding of God I hold concerning the whole of things. [a]

Why do you advise me to lie about the life I live? Why do you, who say you despise death, urge us to use some trick to escape it? I do not have the heart of a deer; but the way you work at your arguments comes out like Thersites and his talk without limits. How am I to believe a man who tells me the sun is a lump of molten metal and the moon another earth? Claims like that are a contest of words, not the ordered setting out of truth. And how is it anything but foolish to trust the books of Herodorus about the story of Heracles, which announce an upper earth and say that the lion Heracles killed came down from it? What use is Attic diction, the philosophers’ piled-up arguments, the plausible turns of a syllogism, the measurements of the earth, the positions of the stars, the courses of the sun? Busying yourself with that kind of inquiry is the work of a man laying down his own opinions to himself as laws.

That is why I also condemn your law-making. There ought to be one common ordering of life for everyone; but as it is, there are as many bodies of law as there are kinds of city, so that what is shameful in one place is thought admirable in another. Greeks, for instance, hold that sleeping with your mother is to be avoided; among the Persian Magi that very practice is thought the finest thing there is. The sexual use of boys is prosecuted by the barbarians; among the Romans it is granted special privileges, and they try to round up herds of boys the way men round up horses put out to graze. [i]

So then: I had seen all this. I had been initiated into mysteries. I had examined the religious rites carried on everywhere by effeminate men and by men who live as women. Among the Romans I had found their Jupiter Latiaris taking his pleasure in human gore and in blood from the slaughter of men, and Artemis, not far from the great city, taking up the same kind of practice, and one demon here and another there engineering outbreaks of evil. So I withdrew into myself and looked for a way to find out the truth. [k]

While I was turning over these serious matters, I happened on certain barbarian writings — too old to be set beside the opinions of the Greeks, too divine to be set beside their errors. I came to trust them because of the plainness of their wording, the lack of artifice in the men who spoke, the easy grasp they give of how the whole world was made, their foreknowledge of what was to come, the extraordinary quality of their commands, and their declaration that all things are under one rule. And once my soul had been taught by God, I understood that the one kind of writing has the character of a sentence passed, while the other breaks up the slavery that is in the world and tears us away from many rulers and ten thousand tyrants — giving us not something we had never received, but something we had received and had been kept from holding on to by our own error.

So, having been initiated into the understanding of these things and having made it my own, I want to strip off what belongs to infancy, the way a baby is stripped of its wrappings. For we know that wickedness is put together like the tiniest of seeds: from a small start it has grown strong, and it will be broken up again if we obey the words of God and do not scatter ourselves. For it was by way of a certain hidden treasure that mastery was won over what belongs to us. We dig for it and get filled with dust, and we hand it the foothold it needs to stand. Whoever takes in the whole of that property has laid hold of the more valuable wealth. [n]

Let that much be said to our own household. But to you Greeks, what else is there to say except this: do not abuse those who are better than you, and do not treat their being called barbarians as an opening for mockery. If you are willing, you will be able to find out why people cannot understand one another’s speech. To those who want to examine what is ours, I will give an account that is easy and holds nothing back.

But now I think it right to show that our philosophy is older than what the Greeks practice. Moses and Homer will be our two boundary stones, since each of them is very old — the one older than the poets and the historians, the other the founder of all barbarian wisdom. Let us set them side by side, and we will find that what we have is older not only than Greek learning but than the invention of letters. And I will not bring in witnesses from our own side; I will call on Greeks to help me instead. To do the first would be senseless, since you would not accept it; the second will be striking, because when I brace myself against you with your own weapons, the proofs I take from you cannot be suspected. [p]

The poetry of Homer, his family, and the period when he flourished were looked into by the oldest writers: Theagenes of Rhegium, who lived in the time of Cambyses; Stesimbrotus of Thasos and Antimachus of Colophon; Herodotus of Halicarnassus and Dionysius of Olynthus; after them Ephorus of Cyme and Philochorus of Athens, and Megaclides and Chamaeleon the Peripatetics; then the grammarians Zenodotus, Aristophanes, Callimachus, Crates, Eratosthenes, Aristarchus, and Apollodorus.

Of these, Crates and his followers say Homer flourished before the return of the Heraclidae, within eighty years of the Trojan war. Eratosthenes and his followers put it after the hundredth year from the capture of Ilium. Aristarchus and his followers put it at the Ionian migration, which is a hundred and forty years after Troy. Philochorus puts it after the Ionian migration, in the archonship of Archippus at Athens, a hundred and eighty years after Troy. Apollodorus and his followers put it a hundred years after the Ionian migration, which would be two hundred and forty years after Troy. Some have said he lived ninety years before the Olympiads, that is, three hundred and seventeen years after the capture of Troy. Others have brought the date down lower still and said Homer was a contemporary of Archilochus; and Archilochus flourished around the twenty-third Olympiad, in the time of Gyges the Lydian, five hundred years after Troy.

About the date of the poet I have just named — I mean Homer — and about the disagreement of those who have written on him, let this summary be enough for people able to look into the matter closely. For it is possible to show that the opinions held about the events themselves are false as well. Where the record of dates does not hold together, the history cannot be telling the truth either. What causes error in writing, after all, except setting down things that are not true?

Among us there is no craving for empty reputation, and we do not deal in a variety of doctrines. We have cut ourselves off from the common, earthbound way of talking; we obey God’s commands and follow the law of the Father of imperishable life; and we refuse everything that rests on human opinion. It is not only the rich among us who take up philosophy: the poor enjoy the teaching free of charge, for what comes from God outstrips any repayment the world’s gifts can make. So we welcome everyone who wants to listen, old women and boys alike; every age without exception is treated with honor among us, and every kind of indecency is kept at a distance. And when we speak, we do not lie. It would be a good thing if your persistence in unbelief were brought to a stop; and if not, let our case stand confirmed by God’s own verdict. Laugh, then — you will weep as well. [q]

Is it not absurd that Nestor, who was slow to cut his trace-horse loose because age had left him weak and sluggish, is on your account to be admired for trying to fight on equal terms with the young men, while you laugh at those among us who wrestle with old age and busy themselves with the things of God? Who could keep from laughing when you insist there were Amazons and a Semiramis and other warlike women, and then abuse the unmarried women among us? Achilles was a boy, and is firmly believed to have been very noble; Neoptolemus was younger still, but strong; Philoctetes was weak, but the divine power had need of him against Troy. And what sort of man was Thersites? Yet he held a command; and if ignorance had not given him a tongue without limits, he would never have been slandered as peak-headed and thin-haired. As for all the people who want to pursue philosophy among us, we do not test what can be seen of them, and we do not judge those who come to us by their appearance; we reckon that strength of mind can be present in anyone, however weak they may be in body. Your dealings, though, are full of envy and a great deal of stupidity.

This is why I have been eager to show, from the things you yourselves count honorable, that our ways are sober-minded and your customs are gripped by a great madness. You say we talk nonsense among women and boys, among unmarried girls and old men, and you jeer at us for not being on your side. So listen to the silliness of Greek affairs. The doings of your gods are foolishness carried along by a great reputation, and in the women’s quarters you behave with no decency at all. [t]

Lysippus cast Praxilla in bronze, though her poems say nothing useful; Menestratus cast Learchis; Silanion cast Sappho the courtesan; Naucydes cast Erinna of Lesbos; Boiscus, Myrtis; Cephisodotus, Myro of Byzantium; Gomphus, Praxigoris; Amphistratus, Clito. And what am I to say about Anyta, Telesilla, and Mystis? Euthycrates and Cephisodotus made the first, Niceratus the second, Aristodotus the third. Euthycrates made Mnesarchis of Ephesus, Silanion made Corinna, and Euthycrates made Thalarchis of Argos. I have been eager to name these women so that you will not think anything strange is going on among us, and so that, once you compare the practices in front of your own eyes, you will stop jeering at the women among us who pursue philosophy.

Sappho was a whore of a woman, sick with lust, and she sings her own indecency; but all our women are sober-minded, and the unmarried girls at their distaffs speak out about God more seriously than that girl of yours. So be ashamed of yourselves — you who turn out to be pupils of these women, while you jeer at the women who share our common life, and at the gathering they attend along with them.

What noble child did Glaucippe present to you, who gave birth to a monster, as her statue shows — cast by Niceratus, son of Euctemon, an Athenian by birth? If she was pregnant with an elephant, what reason was there for Glaucippe to enjoy public honors? Praxiteles and Herodotus made you Phryne the courtesan, and Euthycrates cast Panteuchis in bronze, pregnant by the man who had ruined her. Because Besantis, queen of the Paeonians, gave birth to a black child, Dinomenes took the trouble to keep her memory alive by his craft. I condemn Pythagoras too, who set Europa on the bull, and I condemn you, who have honored the man who accuses Zeus, and honored him for his artistic skill. I laugh at Myron’s expertise as well: he made a calf and set a Victory on top of it, because in carrying off the daughter of Agenor it had carried off the prize for adultery and lack of self-control. Herodotus of Olynthus produced Glycera the courtesan and Argeia the harp-player. Bryaxis set up Pasiphae; and by keeping her indecency in mind you have all but decided that the women of the present day should be like her. There was a wise woman named Melanippe, and that is why Lysistratus made her. But you refuse to believe there are wise women among us.

A most impressive man, no doubt, was Phalaris the tyrant, who feasted on babies still at the breast, and who is put on display to this very day, thanks to the work of Polystratus of Ambracia, as some sort of marvel. The people of Acragas were afraid to look at that face of his because of his cannibalism, while people who take an interest in culture now boast that they can look at him in a statue. And is it not a hard thing that the killing of a brother is honored among you — you who look at the figures of Polynices and Eteocles and have not thrown them into a pit along with Pythagoras who made them? Destroy these memorials of wickedness! [x]

Why, for the sake of Periclymenus, should I count the woman who bore thirty children a marvel and study her likeness? She carried off the topmost prize of a great lack of self-control, and the right response was disgust — she whom the Romans compared to a sow, which for the same reason, they say, was thought worthy of a rather more mysterious worship. Ares committed adultery with Aphrodite, and Andron made you Harmonia, their child. Sophron handed down trash and nonsense in his writings, and became more famous because of the bronze-work, which is still standing. And Aesop the liar was made unforgettable not only by his tales but by Aristodemus’ modeling, which made him widely sought after.

So how are you not ashamed? You have all these women poets, good for nothing useful, and countless prostitutes, and worthless men, and you slander the dignity of our women. What is it worth to me to learn that Euanthe gave birth in the Peripatus, or to stand gaping at the art of Callistratus, or to fix my eyes on Calliades’ Neaera? She was a courtesan. Lais was a prostitute, and Turnus made her a monument to prostitution. Why are you not ashamed of Hephaestion’s sexual immorality, even if Philo does make him with real skill? And what reason have you for honoring Ganymede the man-woman, made by Leochares, as though you owned something worth having? Praxiteles even made a woman in the act of being defiled. You ought to have refused everything of this kind and looked for what is genuinely serious — and not laid claim to the unspeakable inventions of Philaenis and Elephantis while treating our way of life with disgust.

I have not set these things out at second hand. I have traveled through a great deal of country. I made my living as a sophist teaching your own subjects. I ran into many arts and inventions. And at the end of it I stayed a while in the city of the Romans and studied the whole variety of statues that had been carried up to them from your lands. For I do not try, as most people do, to shore up my own case with other people’s opinions: of everything I am going to reject, I want to set down my own understanding and my own record. So I said goodbye to Roman boasting and Athenian cold cleverness, doctrines that do not hold together, and laid claim to the barbarian philosophy that is ours. I had begun to write how it is older than what you practice, and I put that off because something more pressing needed explaining first; now that the moment has come, I will try to speak about its teachings. [ab]

Do not be put out by our teaching, and do not work up a reply against us stuffed with nonsense and cheap jokes, saying: “Tatian, setting himself above the Greeks and above the endless crowd of philosophers, is striking out on a new path with barbarian doctrines.” For what is so hard about men who have shown themselves to be ignorant being cross-examined by a man who is made of the same stuff they are? And what is out of place, on the word of your own sophist, about growing old while always being taught something?

Still, let Homer not come after the Trojan war. Let it be granted that he belongs to the time of the war itself, or even that he served in the army with Agamemnon, or, if anyone likes, that he lived before letters were invented. The Moses I mentioned will still be shown to have lived a great many years before the capture of Ilium, and far earlier than the founding of Troy, or than Tros and Dardanus. To prove it I will call as witnesses the Chaldeans, the Phoenicians, and the Egyptians. And why say more? A man who claims to be persuading his hearers ought to keep his account of events short. [ad]

Berosus, a Babylonian, priest of their god Bel, born in the time of Alexander, arranged the history of the Chaldeans in three books for Antiochus, the third king after him. Setting out the acts of the kings, he tells of one of them named Nebuchadnezzar, who made war on the Phoenicians and the Jews — events we know were announced beforehand by our prophets, and which happened long after the age of Moses, seventy years before the Persian empire. Berosus is a thoroughly reliable man, and the proof of it is Juba, who says in his work on the Assyrians that he learned the history from Berosus. There are two books of his on the Assyrians.

After the Chaldeans, the Phoenician evidence runs as follows. There were three men among them: Theodotus, Hypsicrates, and Mochus. Chaitus put their books into Greek, and he also wrote the lives of the philosophers with care. In the histories of the writers just named it is shown that the carrying off of Europa happened under one of the kings, and an account is given of Menelaus’ arrival in Phoenicia, and of the affairs of Hiram, who gave his daughter in marriage to Solomon king of the Jews and made him a gift of timber of every kind of tree for the building of the temple. Menander of Pergamum wrote up the same matters. Now Hiram’s time comes somewhere close to the Trojan war; and Solomon, who lived in Hiram’s day, comes far later than the age of Moses. [ae]

The Egyptians too have exact records of dates, and the interpreter of their affairs is Ptolemy — not the king, but a priest of Mendes. Setting out the acts of the kings, he says that the Jews’ journey out of Egypt to the places they came to happened in the time of Amosis, king of Egypt, with Moses leading them. He puts it like this: “Amosis lived in the time of King Inachus.” After him Apion the grammarian, a man of the highest standing, says a great deal in the fourth book of his Egyptian History — he wrote five books — and among the rest this: “Amosis destroyed Avaris in the time of Inachus of Argos, as Ptolemy of Mendes recorded in his Chronicles.” The time from Inachus to the capture of Ilium fills out twenty generations. The steps of the demonstration run like this: [af]