DIALOGUE
of the pious and Christ-loving Emperor
MANUEL PALEOLOGOS
to his dear and all-fortunate brother
Lord Prophyrogennetos
which he conducted with the worthy Persian Mudarris at Ankara in Galacia
Translator’s note
This dialogue took place at Ankara, in Turkish territory, in 1391. Mudarris was Manuel’s host.
I provide merely the text, without notes or comment, simply for information, since a reference to it led to an international controversy.
It is translated from the text edited by Théodore Khoury (Sources Chrétiennes, 115, Cerf, 1966). See that edition for ample comment. Paleologos II and the Persian certainly had a skewed understanding of each other’s religion and even failed to present adequately their own. A competent reader should be able to judge what is valid and what is not.
Note that this edition only provides the 7th in a series of 26 debates. The text is in late Greek and has mannerisms all its own, while the author's style is sometimes awkward. Khoury's French translation helped solve some difficulties. My translation was a tedious three day job.
—Joseph Kenny, O.P.
Beginning of the seventh debate
1. a. At the light of day, Mudarris was at the door and spoke to us in his usual manner: “Regarding what we left undiscussed yesterday, if you like, let us continue.” When everyone had gathered around, as before, I began with the following topic:
b. That the law of Moses is from God is shown by the great number of miracles. For Moses could not do anything beyond the power of nature and and the same time give laws which were not from God. God has shown that he honors this law by works and constant declarations, which not only glorify the lawgiver both before and during the announcement of the law, but also by showing his hatred and rejection of those who did not keep the law, for anyone who despised the law would be despised by him and have to pay the penalty.
c. I want to tell you briefly and succinctly the difference between the two laws. Almost all people fall into one of three groups, as they espouse Moses or Christ or the man [Muḥammad] whom you do not hesitate to compare with the one who saw God [Moses]. But it is only your law that everyone finds fault with from every aspect.
2. a. Consider this: You say that the law of Moses was brought down from God, and that our law is certainly much better than it, so that you consider both good. Even so, you prefer your own law to it, even though it not praised by anyone, but rather criticized by all.
b. Here is the evidence: If you inquire from people at large which is the best law and which is the worse, each would say his own is the best, but that of Muḥammad the worst. At the moment we are proposing a hypothesis, but you yourself know that if you ignore common opinion and take its proponents as enemies you are arguing badly. One must disregard the judgement of a person in his own case and discount his verdict, but when there is agreement from all sides on anything, that opinion should be admitted.
c. This precludes calling your law properly a law, and from registering the one who established it as a lawmaker. That is because the more important statutes of this new law are older even than Moses’ legislation. Therefore these statutes have a more ancient origin, and do not come from Muḥammad. Thus discarding the error of idol worship, fleeing from polytheism, believing in one creator God, taking circumcision as a sign of faith, and other such statutes were given orally by Abraham. Later Moses put them in writing, with additions that God dictated to him. Thus this latest law coming after the old law borrowed its suppositions and principles from the old law, and not the old law from the new. How could the old law derive anything from the newer? The question of which is superior, then, needs no demonstration. Why even discuss suppositions and principles, when its best and most essential statutes are clearly borrowed, or should I say “pillaged”, from the old law. Show me if there is anything new in that recent law, except for what is bad and most inhuman, as when the lawmaker sees that the faith he preaches is spread by the sword.
3. a. I must explain the latter point more clearly. [Islamic law] gives people three choices: (1) either to accept that law, or (2) to pay a certain tribute or even be put in slavery, or (3) to be cut down by the sword if one refuses the first two options.
b. This is most absurd. Why? Because God does not rejoice in blood, and to act unreasonably is alien to God. What you say borders on the irrational, first because it is most unreasonable to have to pay money to live evilly and against one’s own law.
c. Secondly, faith is the fruit of the soul, not the body. A good tongue and correct understanding are necessary for someone embracing the faith, not force or threat or torture or intimidation. An irrational nature needs to be forced and persuasion is out of place, while a rational soul needs to be persuaded, without recourse to arms or whips or any other thing threatening death.
d. No one could ever say that he wants to do evil unwillingly, because it is commanded by God. For if it is good to attack with the sword anyone anywhere who does not believe, and if this is God’s law come down from heaven, as Muḥammad maintains, it would be necesssary to kill all who do not accept this law and preaching. For it is clearly impious to buy religion with money. Or do you think otherwise? I don’t think so. So, as this is not good, all the more so is killing not good.
e. Yet if he added something to the law of Moses, you immediately call it a law, and you do not want anyone to disagree, but you think it should be placed above what came before it. For what reason, when it is not even reasonable to call it a law.
f. For what makes it seem to be a law is what prevents it from being a law. A requirement of a law is to establish something new that pleases God. But this law borrows prescriptions from elsewhere. If you take away all that is old, it would not differ from the mythical jay bird which was lent all sorts of feathers; when these were taken away, it remained just a jay bird.
g. If this is the case, I do not know who would not regard your law—if we call it such to please you—as inferior to that of the Jews. And if it is inferior to that, it is much more inferior to the law of Christ, which you and everyone admits is much better than that of the Jews.
4. a. That is what I said. A long silence followed. The interpreter, of Christian origins, who liked his parents’ beliefs and disagreed with the thinking of my opponents, though not as much as he should have, seemed to be lifted up by what I said. With a happy face he said quietly to the Persian: “How long will we remain like statues without replying? You have to do something great if we do not want to come out of here with shame, leaving to others the crowns of victory.
b. The Persian then lifted up his head haughtily and first looked at his own people, and then at me, and said:
The Persian
5. a. I said, I say, and I will say that the law of Christ is beautiful and good, and far better than the old law, but that mine is better than both. Examine what I say; do not condemn it outright as soon as you hear it. Your law is beautiful and good, but because it is harder, heavier and unable to be easily useful, just like very painful medicine, one would not be wrong in saying that it is not very perfect.
b. The law of Muḥammad is the middle way, and proclaims easier precepts that are much more bearable and humane. Therefore it defeats all other laws by being moderate in everything. For it fills in by its own precepts what was lacking in the old law, but trims the excesses of the law of Christ. So by its difference from both laws it is clearly by this fact the winner.
c. It avoids equally the lowliness and defectiveness of the law of the Jews and the height and loftiness of the commandments of Christ, which are heavy, excessive and impracticable for people up to now. For they somehow force our earthly nature to climb to heaven. Our law avoids both extremes, honoring the mean in everything. Therefore it is and is seen to be better than all laws.
d. You know that the virtues always flee the extremes, but carefully keep to the mean. This is what makes a virtue and gives it its name. For a virtue is the mean, and what is not the mean is not virtue. This has been taught by all the ancient philosophers, and you admitted this previously.
e. Tell me, then, where is the mean in “love your enemies and pray for them,” and “feed them when they are hungry”? And in that gracious statement—excuse my words—“Hate your parents and brothers and your very life”? And in “When someone takes your tunic, give him your cloak as well,” and “Give without delay to everyone who asks”? This would leave you more naked than a pillar and a laughingstock to everybody, who would thereby turn you into Mysian booty under the pretext of being in need.
The same goes for “When someone slaps you on one cheek, offer him the other,” and “By no means resist an evil person,” and “Do not carry a staff or a cane or money or a second tunic,” and “Do not worry about tomorrow.” Who is made of iron or diamond, more insensible than stone, who can bear all this, who will bear offence and love the one who insults him, who will do good to the one who is mistreating him, who will by free offerings invite such people to come to him like vultures on dead bodies?
f. Who would accept such a message, unles we were granted an enduring grace to support all that is laid upon us and have no regard for our miseries? Then there is that totally unbearable burden which goes against God’s ancient ordinance—I mean virginity. The problem is obvious. For those who are bound by a body to imitate the nature of bodiless beings, as if living with a bare soul, and not to touch a woman, is outside the realm of reason. It is a heavy and violent burden.
g. Not to have children as descendants by living without marriage clearly is to destroy the world. It is utterly absurd and unworthy of God to make human beings male and female from the beginning, for him to command them to multiply and, when the end of the command is achieved and the earth is full of people, then to give the human race a law that will make people disappear. Do not bring up the flood, or those laid low in the desert in the time of Moses, nor the unusual fire that came upon Sodom. These events did not wipe out the human race, but happened as punishment because of the great sin of those people. But Christ is not the minister of wrath, nor do I think he came to take vengeance on those who offended God, but to do good and help people, especially with a better law.
h. Let us examine this: “It is good to leave father and mother and cleave to one’s wife,” and in this way continue the human race, as the ancient command stated. I do not think this needs a reply. I do not attempt to dismantle what God had prescribed for our forefathers to perpetuate the human race and fill the world with people. But this second law which introduces virginity you say is much better than the former law. How otherwise? Then all should be bound to keep it. But if all keep it, the human race would be entirely wiped out. Therefore the two precepts, to multiply, and to practice virginity, do not agree, but are opposed to one another. Since one of two opposites must be wrong and the other not, I would think that the one that makes people have an inappropriate opinion of God is the wrong one. That is the case with the one that would lead to the extinction of the human race, that is, virginity, as I have said.
i. So the intermediary law, as I designate your own, presents us with many such traps. Therefore it is clearly not perfect, but it is much better than the one that preceded it, and is clearly inferior to the one which follows it.
6. a. Therefore the last law appears higher than the others, as is the case with buildings. Therfore we cannot allow a Jew whose law, as it were, lies on the ground, to approach the higher faith of Muḥammad without first, if possible, having practiced your religion. For someone approaching God one should not jump disorderly, but move by degrees through the middle to the last, having started with the first, so that order may always be preserved.
b. In a word, Jews were religious until the coming of Christ, and so were those who believed in him afterwards. The remainder did not keep the law, nor did they believe in Moses who spoke about him beforehand, even though they kept all the commandments, and outwardly revered and honored Moses after God. All those who believed in Christ thenceforward became the people of God, until Muḥammad came bringing the perfect law. After that, only thoswe who accepted this law are the true disciples of Christ and of Moses. But those who are overzealous and hold onto abrogated laws provoke the anger of those who brought these laws and they foolishly work for their own damnation.
The Emperor
7. a. After saying this, the elder raised his eyebrows and sat down. The circle of listeners were all attentive, for they thought that the contest had reached its high point. The children displayed their approval of their father’s words by applauding and wanted to jump up and down.
b. Then I said:
8. a. What is this, sir? You have attacked the acropolis with full force and fierce disdain and bluntness, as if to take it by one outburst. But your hopes are in vain. There are men who live here, and it is built on rock, and it has an abundance of wonderful goods. When you stop fighting, by God’s intervention, you and these your two children may become partakers of these goods which you have never before enjoyed.
b. Allow me to express my amazement at this: You are a man of intelligence, enormously respected among your teachers, adorned with the deepest wisdom of your people, a person of good disposition, subjecting everything to truth. But then you trip yourself and fall into plain contradiction. For you said that Moses’ law was from God and was good, assuring that it was sent to humanity from heaven. Then, as if repenting from what you said, you persist in speaking evil of it, so that you trip yourself, as I said. For it cannot be from God and good, and then be the object of righteous reproach. Not only this law, but also that of Christ, you repudiate as evil on the grounds that they are immoderate.
c. You suppose that your own law is best because it keeps to the mean, and therefore it qualifies as virtue. You thereby put yourself in a predicament that is an embarrassment to your friends. For it is not becoming of a man of your stature to blast the law of Christ with lengthy diatrabes. You know how you were carried to excess, openly calling it extremely unbearable, violent, heavy, absurd etc. This is to say nothing about your remarks on virginity, by which you attack the one who introduced it, even though elsewhere you rank him above the rest of men.
9. a. So reflect further on your arguments. You can come up with something better without self-contradiction. But let me reply to your objections.
b. The unusual and exalted things which you say surpass human nature are not actually out of man’s reach, but are practicable and very easy for those who desire them. This may seem like a paradox, but it is very true. For if we rely on our own strength, or rather the weakness we inherit from Adam, these practices would seem beyond all virtue. But if we consider the support and strength of the one who recommended them, they are not. For he did not recommend these practices and leave us stripped of help, but the hand of God invisibly assists them in carrying them out. So where there is this alliance, what can be onerous and difficult? Rather, what is there that is not easy?
c. Take courage from the reward for these practices, which is the kingdom of God, as was seen in the previous discourse and as you agreed. So those who have this hope are able to bear anything. But this is not the matter at hand. Your words draw me like a flood towards the present audience. But let me return to arguments that will persuade you, which will not require your response, as you shamefully admit that they are right.
10. a. While our Lord was living among us, and was correcting our behavior and bringing us to the light of truth by every means, at times gave commandments and prescriptions for all to observe, without exception. He laid these down as a defining mark or sign of our love for him. “He who loves me will keep my commandments.” All must obey these; otherwise we cannot get out of the status of his enemies, because of original sin, and become his slaves.
b. Other practices he did not make obligatory for all, or impose as Lord, but proposed as recommendations or counsels, or as a spiritual combat—if we may use the term—for the more perfect, promising them the kingdom of heaven and the rank of sons of God. For to those who want to be his slaves, people of little ambition, he gives corresponding good things. For riches are not all equal. Those who embrace and keep the counsels share in a mystical sonship by sharing in divine grace. The works and powers of the divine Spirit bear witness to this, since they abide in them and flow out of them like a stream from an everlasting spring.
11. a. I wish to explain this more clearly. Excuse me for being carried away by the direction of the discussion and the impulse of truth to matters I do not wish to embark upon, matters which are like unripe fruit or, more exactly, unripe for you because of your attachment to fleshly things. Such spiritual food belongs to those of a lesser rank, who keep the commandments certainly, since otherwise they would be useless slaves. These people will not only escape punishment, but also will have immortal enjoyments through the Master’s favor to his slaves. He will be gracious to all, because he took the form of a slave, although by nature he was Lord.
b. It should be clear that to keep the commandments is a general and indispensable necessity. But to go up to the level of the counsels which raise a person to sonship is only for those who are ready to undertake painful things of whatever sort or number to gain unending joy and glory. These must persevere to the end, and not fall out after a time from those admirable people who do admirable things for the sake of goodness, and win admirable crowns suiting their heads only.
c. Therefore, when the Savior spoke of this, explaining what I wanted to say, he uttered this statement which is very short in words, but as embracing as the sky, if we consider its power: “Let him who can take it, take it.” In other words, the present struggle is great, but the rewards are greater and eternal. He is referring to a man with youthful daring and calculation can endure the sweat. I do not want to force you into the stadium; that is not what is done and would not be just. Let him who can take it, that is, he must choose to overlook the sweat from racing. This is worthy of admiration. For Christ allows free will—the distinguished honor given to man from the beginning, by which he surpasses other animal—to remain intact, because no other way would work. For how could anyone give someone a kingdom by force, or crown sleeping people? By another way, by art and appropriate power he pushes all to better things. For he opened the kingdom of heaven to all, showed the way leading to it, did everything necessary to achieve that purpose, and left nothing undone to help the athletes and travelers. There is nothing leading all to good which he did not strongly recommend.
d. See, then, a law which surpasses nature, leads all to virtue, comes to the aid of our will and assures rewards corresponding to the performance of each.
The Persian
12. a. Let us see, some say, what you say about mysteries and doctrines that surpass our knowledge. You distinguish Christ’s precepts into commandments and counsels, and have spoken adequately about that.
b. I would like to hear about that more in detail.
The Emperor
13. a. How else do you think I should compose my defence? Whoever is unable to practice virginity is not thereby deprived of future goods. Otherwise those who are saved would be very few. Likewise, whoever has his cloak taken way and does not also give his tunic is not punished for that. The same could be said about one who is slapped on one cheek and does not offer the other. But if we cannot show a greater willingness to suffer injustice than the willingness of the unjust to do injustice, but are patient when suffering injustice from anyone, we will certainly receive a great reward. But this is not easy or within the reach of many.
b. What you said at the beginning, you remember, rightly led us to this discussion. Nevertheless the loftiness of the exhortations does us good, for nothing could bring greater happiness than to put them into practice, to devote our energy to that aim, and shake off a wavering spirit. This does not give us a natural reward; far from it. For even if we are unable to give what escaped the fierce grasp of the unjust, and put all the higher counsels into practice and thereby reach the ultimate of perfection, and we are unable to make the so-called “second sailing”, which is to patiently endure any who wrong us, yet we live moderately, knowing how much we fall short of the best things.
The Persian
14. a. How does it seem that they are living moderately if they fall short of the higher things, but devote themselves to assisting others, justice etc.?
b. I think you said that these also will enjoy eternal good things. But is not living with such hopes to live moderately?
The Emperor
15. a. My dear, that necessarily follows for people of intelligence. If they carefully keep the commandments that are meant for hired slaves, how could we equate them with sons? A slave who has sense has no reason to feel proud. If he does his job as a servent, even if by insignificant little jobs he brings his master thousands of goods, he has simply done his job and not done the master a favor. If he fails to do his job he desrves beating, confinement or other punishment, but if he does well no one will take note, not even himself. For what reason? After all, he owes much.
b. Even so, this example falls short. For we depend on slaves, and many of us have been delivered from manifold misfortunes and have acquired much good through slaves. But what need does God have for our service, since he needs nothing and creates everything simply out of goodness? So by keeping the commandments of our Master, no one should hold his head high. For a slave has no right to payment. He will receive what his needs require, while his eyes are on those who perform better than he does.
16. a. Enough for that. Your questions made me stray from the subject because they required answers. The course of the debate brings us back to the main point so as to follow it to its proper conclusion.
b. Those who fall short of the counsels and recommendations are certainly not lost. But if we commit no injustice, and wish to suffer no injustice, but if we do and we bring the case to the judge and accuse the one who wronged us, we are not to be blamed. Nor are we to be blamed if we wear sandals, have two tunics, a staff, a cane and money in our pocket. Marriage is also legitimate for those who want it, and to possess money justly acquired, even though it is a greater gain to forego present goods and prefer the poverty adopted by Christ from the beginning over prosperity. In a word, to do everything that life requires reasonably is not condemned by nature nor forbidden by the law.
17. a. Now we should make distinctions and summarize the discussion.
b. It is evil men, not worthy slaves, who make little of their master’s commandments. It is the wise and faithful who keep them. But to welcome with pleasure the wonderful counsels and to adopt them as far as possible is for those desiring great things, who do not wish to be slaves; such are eligible for sonship.
c. We should speak as follows: It is for superior people, that is, those who subscribe to these higher values, to converse with angels and become, as it were, their companions. Those who of a lesser, intermediate rank love to keep the precepts that save and reconcile God with sinners. Those of the third degree, which is outside the above two, are on the level of pigs with nothing of value.
d. After learning this, I would not think, dear friend, that you now hold to your first opinion, and would not say that our law is very severe and a trap, and likewise the recommendations and counsels, which you said were beyond human virtue, which is totally untrue. For how could the law recommend what is impossible?
e. If you say that these are heavier than those of the old law, that is not surprising, for they are obviously higher, and perfect the old law, as you yourself said. To perfect is in every way higher than to receive perfection from another. But what is higher and steep is more difficult and the way up is consequently more laborious. Truly narrow, tight and steep is the road considered in itself. But this is the road which God, when without leaving heaven he became man for our salavation, opened up for all, after it had been uncharted, unused and impassable before. For it went up to a higher place, was not easy or smooth or easy because no one had crossed it before.
f. The road which our first parents traversed is just the opposite. It leads to the depth and has had many travelers on it from the beginning, because it is not so steep or rough, and its easiness is a bait. No wonder then that the Savior turns people away from pleasures which lead to the depth, and rather walks on the road which can bring travelers to salvation. It would be surprising if he counseled the contrary. That would be impossible because he has nothing in common with delicacy, and he criticized soft life, speaking to all, even those who pursue it.
g. Out of all men, he demonstrates this particularly to you. For there are among you those who cultivate virtue, and you regard these better than those who go after fame and riches. The Greeks [philosophers] are of the same mind. Virtue, therefore, is held in honor by all, while vice is dishonorable. Nevertheless, in formulating precepts or counsels some have done better than to look for everyone’s agreement.
18. a. If not everybody works as hard as those who are dedicated to their work, we do not need to look into this. For what is flesh and clay, even if it is called upon and pushed and shoved in every way towards virtue by the rational part of the soul, it resists and refuses by nature the better things which save one from corruption. For if the fruits of virtue are sweet, the root is bitter. Because that is true, the works of virtue are laborious and are not accomplished by the necessity of nature but by nobleness of choice. But choice is not the same in all men. The contrary would be more amazing, if all were equally disposed to virtue and did not behave differently.
b. The fact that not all work equally fervently in no way contradicts the truth that virtue is good. But the fact that all would prefer to be counted among serious people rather than to give themselves up to an easy life shows that a virtuous life is superior. I think that if they were given the choice, even those who are attached to an easy life would prefer being capable of living a life that is better in every way, rather than to continue the despicable life they are living. They would choose the better way and reject the other without even stopping to think.
19. a. Thus the distinctions are clear, and everyone’s opinion lines up with the commandments of Christ. This is where the matter stands. Some, like you, think that the commandments of Christ are harder than those of Moses, in the way explained above. From another point of view they are easier to bear, for two reasons:
b. The first reason is because of their different hopes. For the promises are not equal. Some are lowly and earthly: “He who does them will live by them.” Others are high, heavenly and immortal.
c. The second reason is the assistance from heaven which they receive who choose to follow in the footsteps of Christ the lawgiver. For he invisibly puts his touch on their works, he anoints them for the struggle, and arms them, as I said before, with determination to face the sweat.
d. This narrow and tight road does not seem difficult to the more generous. To those with understanding, the road leading to a splendid homeland makes heavy things light, and unbearable things bearable, not just because we do not constantly meet rough spots on the road and we cross them quickly, but because at the end of the journey we are free from pain, we live in our homeland and enjoy good things without interruption. Looking forward to these goods allows one easily to bear the difficulties of the road. We pass beyond them so easily that we do not take note of the time of suffering.
e. It is reasonable, I think, to prefer lasting and stable things, even for those who take marriage as the supreme happiness. But, without intending it, we are brought back once more to doctrinal matters. For it is not easy for those who struggle for the truth to avoid this concern. This makes me fear the same thing happening again, that is, to be bounced by force from one discussion to another, but not without reason, if you have not forgotten what was said before.
f. I will now show that he, to whom nothing is impossible, does not recommend impossible things. My discussion is supported by those who completed this struggle, for many have done so, even though not all have carried out every aspect of these recommendations, but some have followed some, others others, while none have failed in their struggle. I am not only speaking about the commandments, but also about all the counsels.
g. So we do not counsel impossible things, nor suggest them to those who are unable to bear them, nor at the wrong time, nor in a burdensome manner, but we counsel suitable things to suitable people at a suitable time, and with the supposition that it is for him to offer and for them to accept. For not everything is suitable to everyone at all times and in all situations, but some things are suitable for these people, others for those, and what was good for someone yesterday may be good for another today, for thousands of reasons.
20. a. Therefore many choices of life are available that lead to the salvation of souls, for “There are many rooms in my Father’s house.” So the Savior said, showing that he does not give equal rewards to good people, such as those who live only by the commandments, and those who go further by observing the counsels, but afterwards he gives immortal crowns and befitting rewards to each, which however differ one from another in brightness. The difference is not just between sons and slaves, but also among individuals of each group.
b. Since I said there are many ways of life, it seems I must say something about them. There is no time to distinguish them all by genus and species, but we can reduce them, according to wise men, to three groups of one whole. Among those who respect God, some choose to keep away from evil from fear of punishment, and when they cleanse themselves of their passions they feel bad and wish their souls were more comfortable. They are in an absurd situation, and are not at all different from lazy and evil slaves. By the good they do they hardly overcome the reluctance they experience, since they do not work with a happy soul, but because of fear of punishment they buckle down to work unwillingly.
c. For others, life is measured by hopes of nice things. They are like mercenaries, when compared to people closer to God. For good people do not have to do good for the sake of something else, but for the sake of the good itself.
d. The third group we now want to talk about takes the first place in quality and nature, and is the most perfect. For they pursue the good not from fear of punishment nor from hope of nice things. But if they happened to act badly—you may be surprised, but it is true—they would rather suffer from this than be well treated by anyone because of doing something displeasing to God. This is what attracts the gift of sonship. For they judge earthly things not worthy of consideration, because not everything is necessary. But to dream of heaven and of things there while the body is still alive, shows those who choose to live that way that their passions are dead. For they always have before their eyes the God who wounded them with a mad desire for him. They always think of this, and disregard things of the earth. And they transform themselves into him, as far as this is possible, so that they can attract like to like, even though God is impassible, and the likeness of the best men to him is small and tenuous, and this by the greatest grace thatis possible.
21. a. It is apparant now, as I summarize, that some remain by fear within the limits set down. These are slaves and nothing else. Others do the job of slaves, all right, but they work motivated by hope of reward. These are certainly good and reasonable, exchangingperishable for eternal things, but are not yet sons, because they are not worthy of sonship. Still others have the ambition to surpass those others in every way by trying to observe carefully both the commandments and the counsels, and to look to the life of their Teacher as an example. Only these are really disciples and friends and are registered by divine grace in the chorus of sons. Those who demonstrate such ambition and do such works, who truly know God, keeping their whole soul turned to him, rightly obtain this favor in a way that surpasses their prayers.
b. Certainly the goods above far surpass the desire of men. Beyond words are the glory, the joy and the light which he gives to those who love him, now to the extent that this is possible, but in the world to come with greater brightness and purity. The greatness of these things, in quantity and quality, is “what the ear has not heard nor the eye seen.” The mind, however serious, fails to see it. It will be known only to those who take part in it at that time. Just as the best people here conceive of good, “as in a mirror” or “in a confused manner”, as the man of God says, so they get a faint idea of the excellence of that joy by comparing it with present things. They fly there in soul, each according to the measure of love he has for the Teacher. For by that passion are God’s gifts measured.
c. What is this gift from God which, even when obscurely seen, draws so much to itself, so as to persuade us to disregard the bond of life, and consider pleasant and covetable things as junk in comparison with it? I could easily extend this argument by giving stronger and more abundant examples, but I think what I have said is enough. It is superfluous for a laundry man to go to the Euphrates and the Tigris when he has fountains [at hand] that are enough for what he wants to do. Besides, something which is only slightly better than another requires many words to make a case and show it superiority. But where something surpasses another in every respect, few words are needed, and that for slow minds or those who are unwilling to see the brightness of what is so glaring.
d. If you agree with me, we have reached the conclusion. Otherwise, respond to what I have said.
The Persian
22. a. It would take long, said the Persian, to answer you. Everyone thinks what you have said is good if we examine it in isolation, but if we bring in other considerations, I don’t think it will seem so good.
b. It remains to compare the laws themselves, as we agreed at the beginning. I do not think what I have said of our law will appear as coming from a boaster.
The Emperor
23. a. Why, I said, did you think that what I said did not apply to the two laws? Did it not show the power of each law?—or rather the strength of ours, while yours is weak, foolish and sick? It seems you want have your law shown again to be useless. That will necessarily follow if you put it in the light and compare it to what is entirely unlike it. To the Lydian plain, as the saying goes!
b. First explain how it can be true that the law of Muḥammad agrees with ours? What does it have in common with it? In what way does it complete it? How, because it follows the mean, is it better ours as ours is better than the old law? I see it just the contrary, with you tripping on yourself, and your law in opposition to ours, but close to that of Moses. You are suffering from these positions in spite of yourself, being carried away by the difficulty of the discussion.
c. Speak and teach me, as I listen to you with pleasure and learn. In this way you will clear yourself from blame and will gain considerable praise. For this issue is the center of the whole discussion.
d. But you will not succeed. For if the law of Muḥammad agrees a little with that of Christ, this does not mean that it really assists this law. Someone who brings aid and is really a help is not the one who favors one side and attacks the other, but who wishes the one he helps to come out as a crowned athlete, and who omits nothing that will help bring this about. If someone praises you and turns around to cover you with insults, I don’t think you would register that person among those who wish you to prosper. You would rather consider him hostile and inscribe him among your enemies.
The Persian
24. a. Now, said the Persian, doesn’t [Muḥammad] defend and help your law by stretching out his hand and lifting the burden from your law?
The Emperor
b. If he takes it away, he certainly helps, said I. This is what you always say, but never prove.
The Persian
c. Some of the audience, partisans of the Persian, said: Then show us the contrary.
The Emperor
25. a. Very good, I said. You must prove your statements as true by valid syllogisms. But when Mudarris came forward, you did not observe order, but commanded me to go back up the river, but excused the one who is involved. It is evident how pleasant this is! I should not give in at all, but force you to the proper procedure. Nevertheless, since the struggle you assign me is not difficult, I will accept it with pleasure.
b. And I will show that your law, besides not being of any help to the law of Christ is clearly opposed to it. First, I will state the thesis in a few words, and then try to prove it.
26. a. If Muḥammad, whoever he happened to be—without my trying to examine his life or discuss his law, since I do not want to scrutinize his conduct—through what he said and regulated gave you the most perfect law, and completed the law of Christ—I use your words—as Christ did with regard to the law of Moses, then Muḥammad is entirely helpful, entirely good, and can be called a minister of truth. Let him be a prophet, if you wish, and give him any other title you wish that does not put him above the level of a creature. Then if he says the best things about Christ, and places him over all creatures, by affirming that he is the spirit, the word and the soul of God, but in fact, when it comes to his law and teachings, he confuses everything, turns everything upside down, he is clearly bringing a law that is contrary to that of Christ and is acting contrary to what he said. Let me not say more about this.
b. I do not think it is necessary to dwell on points where the facts speak for themselves and loudly support my words. You should know what to do, what befits your intelligence and age. It is for a wise man, like you, to support those who agree with both yourself and the truth, and fight those who fight the truth. But let us continue.
27. a. By transforming the denser and bodily precepts of the old law into more divine and spiritual precepts, our Savior, as it were, abrogated it. But these old precepts are what Muḥammad renewed, and by this very clearly abrogated our law. By this bad restoration, Muḥammad, you are not good. For if it were a good restoration, how can Christ be good, whom you continually praise, if he was wrong in abrogating it? But let Muḥammad retire in shame. It is with you that we wish to discuss.
b. It is easy to see that he revived as he wished the aged precepts of the law. For example, the law of Moses forbade partaking of unclean food, especially pig meat. It also permits having several wives at the same time, and for many brothers to inherit the same wife if one dies childless. And he who deprives another of his tooth must suffer the same; likwise an eye must be removed for an eye. And there are othe such laws.
c. Muḥammad has given you these precepts as a law. Rather, he has plagiarized them and presented them as his own. In a word, the latest law is in agreement with the oldest. In this case, it is not strictly correct to call your law a law, or to compare it with those that came before. I am in a quandry, since I am expected to compare it with both laws, especially our own. May I be excused for this reluctance at a task which I carry out for a good purpose, for him who, for the salvation of men, was crucified between two thieves, one wise, the other insolent.
28. a. I will now speak briefly and clearly. If the newest law is practically the same as the oldest in its main points, and Muḥammad recognizes that the law of Christ is better than the old law, he has shown, without realizing it, that it is better than his law. For kindred things are to be judged in absolutely the same way.
b. We must go back to some points mentioned above. One cannot be reproached for using the same words when pushed to consider the same subject again.
c. Christ took some precepts from the Scripture of the old law and presented them to us endowed with a higher meaning, worthy of a heavenly law, completing them where they were defective. For he did not abolish the old law, but fulfilled it. In another sense he abrogated those precepts by not allowing them to be understood as they were before. So what the Savior clearly abrogated, Muḥammad revived and reestablished as he saw fit for his disciples, and making them sacred for you. It is clear to all that his law agrees and rhymes with Moses’ law, which he had judged imperfect and introductory, and it is opposed to our law, although he boasts that it helps and defends it. What do you say? Is this not so? Everyone sees it this way, and you must also, if you wish to adhere to the truth.
d. If the law for which his words express admiration he really abrogates as it suits him, but agrees with the law he claims to distance himself from, then what more proof is necessary to show that he is a liar?
e. But in reality, his law does not purely agree with that of Moses. This is something we bring up because it must be said. How can he talk of accord, when he runs it down? He does this in many places, especially when he prefers himself to it. Without stopping to disparage it, he appropriates most of its precepts and even corrupts some. Thus those who steal horses or cattle cut their ears off, shave their hair, change their seals, add signs and give them a totally different identification.
29. a. What do you think of this? Is it enough to convince you that your belief in your lawmaker and in your law is not correct? For when you think you are piously venerating the oldest law, you are doing just the contrary, and your attempt to praise the giver of that law really serves to overthrow him.
b. But after borrowing the easier precepts of that law, and a few of our own also—for you are convicted of not having instituted, but of having stolen the precepts which you maintain have been learned from God—you should keep to your role and not refrain from greater thefts, by extracting from both law what is truly high, which transform the soul and lift it to its proper place.
c. But you have not tried to do this, knowing that this is too much for you and for your strength. Rather, you have gone wholly after the lighter precepts. And that is natural. For a thief or intruder who has little strength does not try to remove the heavy vessels of gold that he finds. His bodily strength does not measure up to the weight of the vessels which he desires. He takes what he is able to carry and goes away, even if it is made of cheaper material.
d. That is the case with you, even if you have put much thought into patching your fraud and repackaging what you stole. But the stolen things you carried away will give you little profit. For to take away a few teachings from a law and pass it on to your followers as your own, that is an act of greed that anyone can do. Even if you added something of your own to it, it is, for its character, like a spot on a beautiful face.
e. For precepts that are proportionate to your strength, for sure, have been stolen from one or other of the other laws. The heavier ones, which require a man to bear, you have left for those who border upon Moses [the Christians] to bear, and you stay far away from those.
30. a. After saying this, I asked for their judgement: “Over to you with this judgement.” But they asked for a delay, promising to do so the next day. But I insisted, not allowingthem any respite, and frustraing any attempt to delay.
The Persian
31. a. I am not lying, said the Persian, that it is not easy to reply to what you said to us, since the points are so many, except to insist that our law, in its own right, assists the two previous laws by taking what is easy from the oldest law, and what is difficult from the second law, and making a polity that is both healthy and easy to observe. That is a good success.
b. Let us examine that more carefully, if you wish. I know that you will agree with us and grant that our law holds the highest place.
The Emperor
32. a. I was surprised at these words and said: I do not know what must be done. I seem to have been pouring water into a leaky jug, with no end to my labor, as you bring me back always to the same things. Only, as you endanger yourself defending your inherited belief, I think you should recognize the positions you took at the beginning. If you struggle to evade the arguments by every ruse, it would have been better not to discuss at all. Yet I think I should accede to your wishes and continue to discuss the laws.
b. Explain then how is this your law better than the old law, when it has been shown that the old law is the source of its having for you the appearance of being a law. And how does it occupy the middle ground, of which you make much to do, and make that the basis of its surpassing the law of Christ, to which it cannot justly be compared?—For that would not be right; rather it would be an insult. And in what clear way does it show the other two laws not to observe the mean—to use your words—when your law knows no mean, and is not even moderately deficient with regard to the law of Moses, which is necessarily less than the law of Christ, just as Moses is less than Christ? What is that wonderful polity which he is alleged beneficially to have established, and is praised for being healthy and easy to observe? How can you say that your law occupies the highest summit because it avoids excesses, and that it has reached that hight by going up by stages?
c. What Muḥammad borrowed from both laws and put together in great ignorance, he did not call a law in the true sense, but if you examine it carefully you find it to be a disordered compilation of miscellaneous material.
d. Give evidence that your affirmations are right. If any of your companions likes, let him defend himself with the boasting you made of your law. But if that is not possible, I will show you what, according to us, is true.
The Persian
e. In the meantime, said the Persian, tell us yourself what you would like to say.
The Emperor
33. a. I then said: Muḥammad wanted very much to appear as the greatest lawgiver, but he did not demonstrate that by his deeds. Rather, as I said, he borrowed all his principles and suppositions from the law of Moses or from our own. Thus circumcision or refraining from certain foods, or other such things make a man perfect before God, thanks to Moses who brought these precepts. Or rather they are good for children and have become superfluous, thanks to Christ, who established in their place other precepts making adults acceptable before God.
b. Even if circumcision and the other things Muḥammad borrowed from precepts of the law are good, the law of the Savior most not be good, because he wanted to abrogate them, and in time he did so and replaced them with others. But if the Savior was right in doing so—as you rightly admit—when he transformed them into better precepts, then the one who tries to turn them back to what they were before is the destroyer of good things. He will then be in either of two situations: He is either out of his mind and gone astray, or he has made a profession of deceiving simple people.
34. a. But you yourself have often said that the law of Moses was imperfect. If it is an imperfect law, then so are its parts. And if circumcision other such things that we have mentioned are parts of that law, then these must also be imperfect and have no power to give perfection. So our Savior was good, in offering perfect things which can bring perfection, but the one who wanted to destroy those goods is, on the contrary, evil.
b. If the Savior has added to the old law, as on a painting, some colors which were needed, in this way he gave it perfection. What do you say about him who tried to wipe these out and take away the beauty of the painting? I know you would have nothing to say about him and his deed, but would prefer to be silent, rather than giving one of only two possible answers: either a lie or something stupid that would bring blame on your prophet. Another person correctly and plainly called the man a plague, because he destroys at his whim the plants that would bring forth fruits worthy of immortality.
35. a. I now wish to refute your attempt to put the law of Muḥammad at the supreme level. I will make just a few simple remarks.
b. First came the law of Moses, which you say is imperfect. This prescribes in writing circumcision and other things which your law has adopted—it is not necessary to go into other matters where your law differs from that of Moses. Then came baptism and anointing and the rest of our sacraments, with a law more beautiful and perfect than the former—which you always concede. Lastly circumcision and nearly all the rest of the old law returned.
c. Is that what you call progress, or order and beauty? You must not. If we go from circumcision to circumcision in a circle, going through higher things back to the lower, then I think anyone who challenges our law for the highest position is doing nothing but belaboring the unthinkable.
d. See where your zeal for your law has led, and you yourself cast the vote.
36. a. A long dispute then arose among them, discussing this matter, I assume, among themselves in Persian. They do that whenever they want to keep their discussion secret from the interpreters.
b. Then, since they came to no conclusion and feared to appear impolite by spending so much of the night talking among themselves, they decided to retire. Even the one who never seemed to have enough of what I said—for he could keep us talking whole nights if he were allowed—sufficiently overcome by the necessity of my reasons, showed a friendly expression and turned to me:
The Persian
37. a. It is better, he said, not to disturb you until late in the night. I see that your body is tired from the cold and the work, since this winter season is a time for hunting. Hunting is good if you do it moderately. Otherwise it is not. Excess is painful for everyone. But if our leader does not observe the mean in this matter, as he does not in nearly every other matter, I think he will be cursed even by those who love hunting.
The Emperor
b. He then moved to adjourn the discussion and resume as usual at sunrise. To avoid being impolite and embarrassing them in their flight, I agreed that the mean is best, and got up. And we all went off to sleep.