Along with many people before and since, most Greeks and Romans believed that dreams could give information about past, present, and even future events. Dreams, however, are manifestly not records or transcriptions of these events. Dreams demand interpretation.
Even when interpreted, some dreams will prove to be false; first of all, therefore, the interpreter must decide how to distinguish true dreams from false, as Penelope does atOdyssey xix.560 ff. She suggests that dreams can be distinguished according to the path by which they reach us; true dreams pass into our consciousness through a gate of burnished horn, while deceptive dreams enter our world through a gate of ivory. The need to distinguish true dreams from false leads naturally to consideration of the causes and mechanisms of dreaming.
Dreams could be caused by external factors like a god, a ghost, or a daemon, or by internal factors like the dreamer’s own soul, recollection of waking activities, or physiological state. Plato recognized that dreams were one of the ways by which the gods conveyed their intentions to mankind (Apology 33c); at the same time, he allows that natural causes, including disturbances in the body’s internal motions, can give rise to dreams (Timaeus 45e).
Around these fundamental polarities of true vs. false and divine vs. natural, ancient philosophers, writers, and theorists of all kinds organized their thought about dreams. For most people, the most important function of dreams was to predict the future, and the first step in interpreting dreams was to recognize which dreams were both god-sent and true. Aristotle’s agnostic attitude toward the possibility of prophesy through dreams (On Dreams 462b12-17) marks an exception to this general rule, as does the Epicurean dogma that “Dreams have no divine nature nor any prophetic force but originate from the impact of images” on the senses (Epicurus, Vatican Sayings 24).
Dreams in Ancient Medicine
Medicina Antiqua: University College London
Along with many people before and since, most Greeks and Romans believed that dreams could give information about past, present, and even future events. Dreams, however, are manifestly not records or transcriptions of these events. Dreams demand interpretation.
Even when interpreted, some dreams will prove to be false; first of all, therefore, the interpreter must decide how to distinguish true dreams from false, as Penelope does at Odyssey
xix.560 ff. She suggests that dreams can be distinguished according to the path by which they reach us; true dreams pass into our consciousness through a gate of burnished horn, while deceptive dreams enter our world through a gate of ivory. The need to distinguish true dreams from false leads naturally to consideration of the causes and mechanisms of dreaming.
Dreams could be caused by external factors like a god, a ghost, or a daemon, or by internal factors like the dreamer’s own soul, recollection of waking activities, or physiological state. Plato recognized that dreams were one of the ways by which the gods conveyed their intentions to mankind (Apology 33c); at the same time, he allows that natural causes, including disturbances in the body’s internal motions, can give rise to dreams (Timaeus 45e).
Around these fundamental polarities of true vs. false and divine vs. natural, ancient philosophers, writers, and theorists of all kinds organized their thought about dreams. For most people, the most important function of dreams was to predict the future, and the first step in interpreting dreams was to recognize which dreams were both god-sent and true. Aristotle’s agnostic attitude toward the possibility of prophesy through dreams (On Dreams 462b12-17) marks an exception to this general rule, as does the Epicurean dogma that “Dreams have no divine nature nor any prophetic force but originate from the impact of images” on the senses (Epicurus, Vatican Sayings 24).
Click here to read this article from Medicina Antiqua
Sponsored Content