Interpretation of Dreams

Like the Eastern peoples, the Greeks and the Romans attached a religious significance to dreams. Of his belief many traces may be found in classical literature. Homer and Herodotus thought it natural that the gods should send dreams to men, even to deceive them, if need be, for the accomplishment of their higher ends (Agamemnon's dream). The same indications may be found also in the works of the dramatists (e.g. Clytemnestra's dream in the "Agamemnon" of Aeschylus.) Plato, whilst regarding it as inconceivable that a god should deceive men, admitted nevertheless that dreams may come from the gods (Tim., cc, xlvi, xlvii). Aristotle was similarly of the opinion that there is a divinatory value in dreams (De Divin, per somn., ii). The teaching of the Stoics was along the same lines. If the gods, they said, love man and are omniscient as well as all-powerful, they certainly may disclose their purposes to man in sleep. Finally, in Greece and Rome, as well as in the East, the popular views of dreams went a great deal farther and developed into superstition. It was accordance with these views, and to gratify the cravings which they created that Daldianus Artemidorus compiled his "Oneirocritica", in which rules were laid down whereby any one could interpret his own dreams.

In the light of the belief and practices of the ancient peoples, we are better able to judge the belief and practices recorded in the Bible. That God may enter into communication with man through dreams is asserted in Numbers 12:6, and still more explicitly in Job 33:14 sqq.: "God speaketh once. . . By a dream in a vision by night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, and they are sleeping in their beds: then he openeth the ears of men, and teaching instructeth them in what they are to learn." As a matter of fact, Divine revelation through dreams occurs frequently in the Old and in the New Testament. In most of the cases recorded the dream is expressly said to come from God; of this description are, e.g., the dreams of Abimelech (Genesis 20:3); of Jacob (Genesis 28:12; 31:10); of Solomon (1 Kings 3:5-15); of Nabuchodonosor (Daniel 2:19); of Daniel (Daniel 7:1); of Joseph (Matthew 1:20; 3:13); of St. Paul (Acts 23:11; 27:23), unless we should interpret these passages as referring to visions granted to the Apostle while awake. God is said to appear Himself only in a few instances, as to Abimelech, to Jacob, to Solomon, and to Daniel, if, as is generally admitted, the "Ancient of days", spoken of in this connection, should be understood to be God; in other instances He is said to speak through an angel, as in dreams narrated by St. Matthew and St. Paul. The Bible records other dreams, which, though prophetic, are not distinctly said to come from God (Genesis 37:6; 40:5; 41:1; Judges 7:13; 2 Maccabees 15:11). It appears, however, from the circumstances and from their prophetic import, that their Divine origin cannot be doubted; at least their interpretation is declared (Genesis 40:8) to "belong to God". Accepting the historical truth of these facts, there is no reason indeed why God should not use dreams as a means of manifesting His will to man. God is omniscient and all-powerful, and He loves man; He may, therefore, in order to disclose his purposes, choose natural as well as supernatural means. Now dreaming, as a natural psycho-physiological phenomenon, has undoubtedly its laws which, however obscure they may be to man, are established by God, and obey His bidding. But since man may be easily deluded, it is needful that God in using natural causes should supply such evidences as will make His intervention unmistakable. Sometimes these evidences are manifested to the dreamer, at other times to the interpreter, if one be necessary; but they will never fail. The analogy of the foregoing reasons with those brought forward by theologians to prove the possibility of revelation is readily perceived. In fact, there is here more than a mere analogy; for communication by dreams is but one of the many ways God may select to manifest His designs to man; there is between them a relation of species to genus, and one could not deny either without denying the possibility of a supernatural order.

All the dreams actually recorded in Holy Writ came unsought. Some scholars infer from the words of Saul (1 Samuel 28:15): "God is departed from me, and would not hear me, neither by the hand of prophets, nor by dreams", that the practice of deliberately seeking supernatural dreams was not unknown in Israel. The words just quoted, however, do not necessarily imply such a meaning, but may as well be interpreted of unsought prophetic dreams. Still less can it be asserted that the Israelites would seek prophetic dreams by resorting to a well-known sanctuary and sleeping there. The two instances sometimes adduced in this connection, namely the dream of Jacob at Bethel (Genesis 28:12-19) and that of Solomon at Gabaon (1 Kings 3:5-15), do not bear out such an affirmation. In both cases the dream far from being sought, was unexpected; moreover, with regard to the former, it is evident from the narration that Jacob was quite unaware beforehand of the holiness of the place he slept in. His inference on the next morning as to its sacredness was inspired by the object of the dream, and his conduct in this circumstance seems even to betray some fear of having unknowingly defiled it by sleeping there.

It should be concluded from the above remarks that there were no errors with regard to dreams and dream-interpretation in the minds of individual Israelites. Like their neighbours, they had a tendency to consider all dreams as omens, and attach importance to their significance. But this tendency was constantly held in check by the more enlightened and more religious part of the nation. Besides the prohibition to "observe dreams", embodied in the Law (Leviticus 19:26; Deuteronomy 18:10), the Prophets, from the eighth century B.C. onwards, repeatedly warned the people against giving "heed to their dreams which they dream" (Jeremiah 29:8). "Dreams follow many cares", says Ecclesiastes 5:2; and Ben Sirach wisely adds that "dreams have deceived many, and they have failed that put their trust in them" (Sirach 34:7). This was, according to 2 Chronicles 33:6, one of the faults which brought about the downfall of Manasses. Above all, the Israelites were warned in every manner against trusting in the pretended dreams of false prophets: "Behold, I am against the prophets that have lying dreams, saith the Lord" (Jeremiah 23:32; cf. Zechariah 10:2; etc). From these and other indications it appears that the religion of Israel was kept pure from superstition connected with dreams. True, a mere glance at the respective dates of the above-quoted passages suggest that the zeal of the prophets was of little avail, at least for certain classes of people. The evil opposed by them continued in vogue down to the Exile, and even after the Restoration; but it is scarcely necessary to remark how unjust it would be to hold the Jewish religion responsible for the abuses of individual persons. Neither did there exist at any time in Israel a class of diviners making it their business to interpret the dreams of their country-men; there were no potherim among the temple-officials, nor later around the synagogues. The very few dream-interpreters spoken of in the Bible, as Joseph and Daniel, were especially commissioned by God in exceptional circumstances. Nor did they resort to natural skills or art; their interpretations were suggested to them by the Divine intellect enlightening their minds; "interpretation belongs to God", as Joseph declared to his fellow-prisoners. Undoubtedly there were among the people some soothsayers ever ready to profit by the curiosity of weaker and credulous minds; but as they possessed no authority and as they were condemned both by God and by the higher religious consciousness of the community, they practised their art in secret.

That certain dreams may be caused by God seemed to be acknowledged without controversy by the early Fathers of the Church and the ecclesiastical writers. This opinion they based mainly on Biblical authority; occasionally they appeared to the authority of classical writers. Agreeably to this doctrine, it was admitted likewise that the interpretation of supernatural dreams belongs to God who sends them, and who must manifest it either to the dreamer or to an authorized interpreter. The divine intervention in man's dreams is an exceptional occurrence; dreaming, on the contrary, is a most common fact. We may inquire, therefore, how the official guardians of Faith viewed ordinary and natural dreams. In general they repeated to the Christians the prohibitions and warnings of the Old Testament, and denounced in particular the superstitious tendency to consider dreams as omens. It may suffice in this connection to recall the names of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory the Great, whose teaching on the question at issue is clear and emphatic. A few, however, held opinions somewhat at variance with the traditional view. Among them the most noteworthy is Synesius of Cyrene (about 370-413), who is the author of a very strange treatise on dreams. Starting from the Platonic anthropological trichotomy, and from certain psychological hypotheses of Plato and Plotinus, he attributed the imagination a manifestly exaggerated role. Above all the arts of divination, the lawful use of which he did not seem to doubt, he extolled dreaming as the simplest and surest mode of prophesying. We know that he had accepted the episcopacy only on the condition that he might continue to hold certain favourite philosophic ideas; and it is reasonable to suppose that his theories on dreams were included in the compact.

Medieval theologians added to the reasonings of their predecessors a more careful, and to some extent more scientific, study of the phenomena of sleep; but they found no reason to depart from the moral principles contained in the writings of the Fathers. Suffice it here to quote St. Thomas Aquinas, who summarizes the best teaching of the Schoolmen. To the query: Is divination through dreams unlawful? — he replies: The whole question consists in determining the cause of dreams, and examining whether the same may be the cause of future events, or at least come to the actual knowledge of them. Dreams come sometimes from internal, and sometimes from external, causes. Two kinds of internal causes influence our dreams: one animal, inasmuch as such images remain in a sleeping man's fantasy as were dwelt upon by him while awake; the other found in the body: it is indeed a well-known fact that the actual disposition of the body causes a reaction on the fantasy. Now it is self-evidence that neither of these causes has any influence on individual future events. Our dreams may likewise be the effects of a twofold external cause. This is corporeal when exterior agencies, such as the atmospheric conditions or others, act on the imagination of the sleeper. Finally dreams may be caused by spiritual agents, such as God, directly, or indirectly through his angels, and the devil. It is easy to conclude thence what chances there are to know the future from dreams, and when divination will be lawful or unlawful (II-II:95:6).

Modern theologians, whilst profiting by the progress of psychological research, continue to admit the possibility of dreams supernatural in their origin, and consequently the possibility of dream-interpretation depending on supernatural communications. As to ordinary dreams, they readily grant that, because the imaginative faculties of man acquire sometimes a keenness which they do not possess otherwise, it is possible in such cases to conjecture with a certain degree of probability some future events; but in all other cases, by far the most common, it is useless and illogical to attempt any interpretation. As a matter of fact dreams are now — we speak of civilized peoples — seldom heeded; only very ignorant and superstitious persons ponder over the "dictionaries of dreams" and the "keys to the interpretation of dreams" once so much in favour. "As idle as a dream" has become a proverb expressive of the popular mind on the subject, and indicating sufficiently that there is little need nowadays to revive the laws and canons enacted in past ages against divination through dreams.