objicere his quædam tortuosa, & obscura, quæ illi exterriti somnio ad conjectorem manè deferant: an natura fieri, ut mobiliter animus agitatus, quod vigilans viderit, dormiens videre videatur.* Besides, where is the use of such a roundabout way of consulting interpreters of dreams, rather than the direct?.... It is disputed whether it be more probable that the immortal gods, who excel in all perfection, run up and down, and surround not only the beds, but the very couches of all men, everywhere; and when they find any asleep, present to their imaginations some intricate and obscure ideas, which, terrified by the vision, they are to carry in the morning to an interpreter; or that it happens by a natural effect, that the mind being put into motion, seems to see in sleep what it really saw when awake." But to this it may be answered, that every creature is limited and imperfect; there may therefore be variations, and even some oddities, according to our way of judgment in the effects, which are directed by the desires of a created spirit. This may serve us as an answer to some objections, which the Freethinkers allege to those who talk to them about the existence of magic; in fine, I affirm that the knowledge of things future is not so great as is imagined, in supposing that there are dreams of divination: for if we duly examine the common relations and popular tradition, most of these dreams inform us only of such things as happen in other countries, or such as are quickly to come to pass. A man dreams of the death of a friend or relation, and it is found, say they, that this friend or relation died fifty leagues off.at the time of this dream. To reveal such a thing as this, does not imply the knowledge of things to come; others dream of I know not what, that threatens them with some misfortune as with death, for instance. The genius who is the author of this dream, * Cicero, de Divinat. lib. ii. cap. lxiii. may know the plots and devices which are framing against them; it may see in the state of the blood, a near disposition to an apoplexy, a pleurisy, or some other mortal disease; but this is not to know things future which are called contingent. But some may say there are private persons who have dreamed that they should reign, and they did not reign till twenty or thirty years after; I answer that their genius being of a very high order, active and wise, had a mind to raise them to a throne; he was resolved to lay hold of every opportunity, and did not doubt of success; and from these conjectures, which were almost certain, he imparted the dream. Men would do as much proportionably to their ability. I do not produce these things as proofs or strong reasons, but only as answers to the difficulties which are proposed against the common opinion; and it must also be considered that I confine myself within the bounds of natural light; for I suppose the disputants would not make use of the authority of scripture. I desire also that it may be observed, that those who maintain there are dreams of divination, need only weaken the objections of their adversaries, for they have an infinite number of facts to allege for their opinion, as have those also who maintain that there is such a thing as magic; and this being so, it is sufficient for them that they can answer objections but it belongs to those who deny these facts, to prove that they are impossible, and without this they will never gain the cause. I ought also to put the reader in mind, that I do not pretend to excuse the ancient Pagans, either as to the care they took to relate so many dreams in their histories, or as to the proceedings that were consequent upon certain dreams. Sometimes they had no other foundation for appointing certain ceremonies, or for condemning the accused. "Quum exæde Herculis patera aurea gravis surrepta esset, in somniis vidit (Sophocles) ipsum deum dicentem, qui id fecisset. Quod semel ille, iterumque neglexit, ubi idem sæpius ascendit in Areopagum detulit rem. Areopagitæ comprehendi jubent eum, qui à Sophocle erat nominatus. Is, quæstione adhibita, confessus est, pateramque retulit. Quo facto, fanum illud Indicis Herculis nominatum est. * A large golden goblet being stolen out of the temple of Hercules, Sophocles in a dream saw the god himself telling him who had done it. He disregarded the vision once and twice, but it being repeated, he went to the court of Areopagus, and gave information of the matter. The Areopagites ordered the person whom Sophocles had named, to be arrested; upon examination by torture, he confessed the fact and restored the goblet whence that temple received the name of Hercules the discoverer." One may justly laugh at the weakness of Augustus, and much more at the law which enjoined all private persons in certain countries, who had dreamed any thing concerning the republic, to declare it openly, either by a public adver isement or by a cryer; and excepting some particular dreams, we may say of all the rest what we read in Petronius. "Hinc scies epicurum hominem esse divinum, qui ejusmodi ludibria facetissimâ ratione condemnat. "Somnia, quæ mentes ludunt volitautibus umbris Non delubra deum, nec ab æthere numina mittunt; Qui quatit, et flammis miserandas sævit in urbes, &c. "Hence you may know that Epicurus was a Godlike philosopher, who very justly and pleasantly condemns these idle notions. "Dreams which delude the mind with fleeting shades Each his own visions makes for stretch'd in sleep, When slumber looses the material chains, The soldier dreams of war and cities fired, &c." And I continue in the same opinion which I have declared elsewhere, that there is no employment more frivolous and ridiculous than that of the Onirocritics. If we would compare with what happens to us, an infinite number of images that arise in our minds, when being awake, we abandon ourselves to all objects that offer themselves, we might find in them as much relation to our adventures, as in any dreams which we look upon as presages. But, say they, we not only see in a dream the objects, but we hear them tell us such things as we never heard when we were awake, and consequently of which we could have no traces in our brain. We sometimes believe that we see in a dream, a new book which we have never heard of before, and we read the title, preface, and a hundred other things in it. This reason is of no force: do we not all this while we are awake? Do we not represent to ourselves such and such persons, who tell us a hundred things which we ourselves frame? Cannot we imagine, if we please, that such a one has just now published such a book which contains such and such things? Thus this pretended great reason is of no weight, but I believe at the same time, that we cannot doubt of certain dreams which are mentioned by authors, neither can we explain them by natural causes, I mean without acknowledging an inspiration or a revelation. See Valerius Maximus, lib. i. cap. 7, and the letters of Grotius, epist. cccv. part 2. As to the objections of Cicero, which are indeed very strong and almost unanswerable, they are of no strength but upon the supposition that God himself is the immediate author of our dreams. It was the supposition of the Stoics, whence it comes to pass that Cotta speaks thus: "Quomodo iidem dicitis non omnia deos persequii iidem vultis à diis immortalibus hominibus dispartiri ac dividi somnia ?* - - - -How comes it that you say the gods do not perform all things, and at the same time affirm that all dreams proceed from them?" "Primum igitur" says he, "intelligendum est, nullam vim esse divinam effectricem somniorum. Atque illud quidem perspicuum est, nulla visa somniorum proficisci à numine deorum. Nostra enim causa dii id facerent, ut providere futura possemus. Quotus igitur est quisque, qui somniis pareat? qui intelligat? qui meminerit? quàm multi verò, qui contemnant; eamque superstitionem imbecilli animi, atque anilis putent? Quid est igitur, cur his hominibus consulens deus, somniis moneat eos, qui illa non modo cura, sed ne memoria quidem digna ducant? nec enim ignorare deus potest, qua mente quisque sit: nec frustrà, ac sine causa quid facere, dignum deo est: quod abhorret etiam ab hominis constantia. Ita si pleraque somnia aut ignorantur, aut negliguntur; aut nescit hoc deus, aut frustrà somniorum significatione utitur. Sed horum neutrum in deum cadit. Nihil igitur à deo somniis significari fatendum est. - In the first place, we are to understand that dreams cannot be caused by any divine power, and this is very evident, that no visions of dreams proceed from the gods; for the gods would do it for our sakes, that we might foresee future events. But how few obey dreams, how few understand them, or remember them? and how many there are who despise them, and think them the superstition of a weak and doating mind? Why then should God, consulting the good of these men, admonish by dreams such as think them not only unworthy of their regard, but even of their remembrance? Nor can God be igno-. rant of the disposition of each man's mind, and it is unworthy of God to do any thing in vain and without *Cicero de Nat. Deor. lib. in sub fin. |