Eratou is an anagram of Arouet—alias Voltaire, the pen name of François-Marie Arouet. In this imaginary comical debate between three scholars, Voltaire clarifies his reasons for thinking certain passages in the Bible indicate that human sacrifice was practiced by the ancient Jews, then shows that they would have hardly been unique in doing so.

My good Sir and dear friend, although there are many books, few people read, you may believe me, and among those who do, there are many who use only their eyes. Yesterday, I was conferring with Mr. Pfaff, the illustrious professor of Tübingen, so well known throughout the universe, and Mr. Crokius Dubius, one of the most knowledgeable men of our time. They had no idea that the Jews had often eaten human flesh. Even Dom Calmet himself, who copied the texts of so many ancient authors in his Commentaries, has never once mentioned this Jewish custom. I told Mr. Pfaff and Mr. Crokius that there were passages that proved that the Jews had appreciated human flesh and horse flesh very much in the olden days. Crokius said he doubted it, and Pfaff bluntly assured me I was mistaken.

I hunted up an Ezekiel at once and showed them these words in chapter 39: “Ye shall drink the blood of princes and fattened animals; ye shall eat fat flesh till ye be sated; ye shall eat your fill of the flesh of horses and their riders at table.”

Mr. Pfaff said that this invitation was made only to the birds. Crokius Dubius, after a long examination, believed that it was also addressed to the Jews since tables are mentioned, but he claimed it was only a figure of speech. I humbly begged them to consider the fact that Ezekiel lived in the days of Cambyses, and that King Cambyses had a lot of Scythes and Tartars in his army, who ate horses and men rather commonly, and that, even if this custom rather repulses our effeminate ways, it was very true to the male, heroic virtues of the illustrious Jewish people. I reminded them that in the Laws of Moses, among the threats of all the ordinary evils he frightens Jewish transgressors with, such as being reduced to no longer giving loans but having to borrow at usurious rates and getting ulcers in their legs, he adds that they will eat their children. “Well then,” I said to them, “do you not see that it was as ordinary for the Jews to cook and eat their children as to get clipped, since their legislator threatens them with both these punishments?”

Several more reflections, which I supported by citations, finally shook up Mr. Pfaff and Crokius. “The most polished nations,” I told them, “have always eaten men and especially little boys. Juvenal saw the Egyptians eat a man quite raw. He said that the Gascons had often had such meals. The two Arabian travelers, whose accounts were translated by Abbé Renaudot, said that they saw men eaten on the banks of China and the Indies.

“Homer, speaking of the Cyclops’ meals, is only depicting the customs of his time. We know that Candide was nearly eaten by the Oreillons because they mistook him for a Jesuit and that, despite the bad joke that the Jesuits are no good, either roasted or boiled, the Oreillons are mad about Jesuit meat.1

“So you can plainly see, gentlemen,” I told them, “that we mustn't judge the customs of antiquity by those of the University of Tubingen. You know that the ancient Jews sacrificed people. It so happens that sacrificed victims have always been eaten. In your opinion, when King Agag made himself Samuel's prisoner, and Samuel cut him into little pieces, was it not quite visibly for a stew? What would be the point of cutting a king into small pieces otherwise?

“The Jews did not eat stews,” Crokius said. “I admit that their cooks were not as good as French cooks,” I replied, “for I believe that it is impossible to cook good dishes without lard. Nevertheless, they did have a few stews. It is written that Rebecca prepared young goats for Isaac in the manner in which this fellow liked to eat them.”

Pfaff was dissatisfied with my response. He claimed it was more likely that Isaac liked his goats on spits and that Rebecca roasted them for him. I maintained that the goats were stewed, which was also Dom Calmet's opinion. He replied that that Benedictine did not even know what a spit was, that Benedictines don't know anything about them, and that Dom Calmet's opinion was erroneous. The discussion grew heated, and we lost sight of its principle object for quite some time, but just-minded people always come back to it in the end.

Pfaff was still entirely astonished by the horses and riders that the Jews ate and in the end, the dispute turned to the superiority that human flesh must have over all the others. “Man,” said Mr. Crokius, “is the most perfect of all the animals. In consequence, he must be the best to eat.”

“I do not agree with this conclusion,” said Mr. Pfaff, “Many scholars claim that there is no analogy whatsoever between thought, which distinguishes men, and a good quivering piece of meat cooked just right. I am also well-founded in believing that we do not have short fibers and that they are not nearly so delicate as those of partridges and wild grouse.”

“And that is with what I do not agree,” said Mr. Crokius, “You have never partaken of wild grouse nor of little boys, and therefore you cannot judge.”

This question left us in quite a predicament until a hussar arrived who certified that he had eaten a Cossack during the siege of Colberg, and that he had found him very hard to chew. Pfaff triumphed, but Crokius maintained that one must never generalize from a particular case. That there were Cossacks and Cossacks, and that tender ones could perhaps be found.

Nevertheless, we did feel some horror at the hussar's story and found him somewhat barbarous. “Really gentlemen, you're awfully delicate,” he told us, “We kill two or three hundred thousand men, and everyone thinks it's fine. We eat one Cossack, and everybody screams.”