Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 7.djvu/474

454 454 DREAM dream, so to speak, lies in the fact that it conveys to the dreamer something which the divine personage wishes him to know, whether it be the will of this being in the shape of a command or a prohibition, or some fact as yet unknown (past or future), the knowledge of which will be of practical utility to the recipient. We may distinguish three stages in this conception of dreams : (I) The deity sends a messenger or angel who is vaguely conceived as a spiritual being clothed in a thin material vestment ; (2) the divine communicator, dispensing with the medium of a material appearance, lets his message be heard by the dreamer as the utterance of an external voice ; (3) he discloses his purpose by causing to pass before the soul a vision which is not distinctly conceived as objective, but rather as some thing mysteriously imprinted on the mind. The divine communication which thus makes use of the medium of a dream will, it is plain, vary considerably in the degree of its intelligibility. Sometimes the meaning of the message is obvious and unmistakable. The actions to be performed and the facts to be known are revealed plainly and directly. This will be the case for the most part with the first and second forms of dream-communica tion. At tunes, too, the divinely created vision may distinctly picture some coming event in the individual or national life. On the other hand, the communication may be disguised and only partially divulged by symbol, in which case there arises the necessity of an art of inter pretation. Thus at times the oral utterance may assume the form of a dim oracular declaration which calls for care ful attention and a certain skill in the application of verbal figures. It is, however, in the last form of dream-revela tion that we find the greatest demands made on the interpreter s art. It follows from what has been said respecting the novelty of dream-combinations that many of the visual images which make up so large a bulk of our dreams cannot easily befitted to any actual order of events. Hence, if such dreams are to be interpreted as having a bearing on actual events, they must be regarded as figura tive or symbolic. Accordingly we find that the symbolic function of dreams has been fully recognized in all the theories of dreaming now dealt with. It seems to have been assumed that the normal mode of divine communication to man during sleep was that of such a figurative dream. And agreeably with this supposition the task of deciphering dream-symbols gradually grew into a skilled art, which became the prerogative of a certain class of experts, as prophets, divinators, or magicians. A very brief historical review of this religious theory of dreams must here suffice. Among the Oriental peoples this view of dreams was the prevailing one. We find, however, great differences in the mode of interpretation adopted. Among the ancient Hebrews, for example, we find all the three forms of dream-communication mentioned above. As to interpretation there seem to have been no definite rules, and the procedure followed resolves itself into an attempt to discover the most natural or least forced application of the persons, objects, and relations of the dream to some existing persons, social circumstances, and events. This mode of interpretation clearly left wide scope for individual skill. In the Persian scheme of interpretation, on the other hand, so far as we can judge of it from the compilations of a later age, the art of dream-interpretation, oneirocritics, or oneiromancy, was defined and fixed in a number of rules. Thus in the work known under the name of the Sifat-i- Sirozah, minute and elaborate prescriptions are given for interpreting various classes of dreams according to the par ticular day of the month on which they occur. A similar systematization of the rules of dream-interpretation is to be met with among the Arabs (see L Onirocrite Mussulman, par Gabdorrhachaman, traduction de Pierre Vattier.) In such cases, it is plain, the interpretation of dreams involved less of individual genius or inspiration, and became a more mechanical process, involving only careful knowledge of formulae, and one which could be easily communicated. Such a state of things points to the transition of dream-lore from the stage of an esoteric mystery to that of a com municable science. Among the Greeks and Romans the religious view of dreams is to be found in popular literature as well as in philosophic writings. In Homer, dreams are distinctly said to be sent by the gods and goddesses, as in the expression ^etos ovapos, and it is implied that they may be intended to deceive the subject of them (e.g., Agamemnon s dream, Iliad, book ii.). Similarly the dramatists frequently speak of foreknowledge divinely communicated by dreams (e.g., Clytemna3stra s prescience as to the fall of Troy in the Agamemnon of yKschylus is ascribed to a dream). The popular view was countenanced to a certain extent by philosophers. Thus Plato found room in his mystic scheme of knowledge for the idea of a divine manifestation to the soul in sleep. In the Timccus (chaps, xlvi. and xlvii.) a prophetic character is distinctly assigned to the images of dreams. These divine inspira tions (divinations) are not, however, given to the rational soul, but to the lower appetitive soul through the medium of the sensible images of rational truths which are reflected on the liver, an organ contiguous with the bodily seat of the appetitive soul. These prophetic visions are received only when the reasoning faculty is fettered by sleep or alienated by disease and enthusiasm. In this way tho divine artificer has given to the inferior regions of the soul a certain substitute for rational knowledge. At the same time the interpretation of the visions requires intelligence, and hence the business of receiving them and of interpret ing them does not properly belong to the same persons. Even Aristotle treats the supposition of divine revelation in dreams very considerately when he writes, in the treatise Trepl /x.cu TiKT/s T^S eV TOIS VTTVOIS, l&amp;lt; that there is a divina tion concerning some things in dreams is not incredible.&quot; The Stoics, again, to judge from Cicero s account of their views in his De Divinatione, reasoned a priori that the gods, if they love men and are omniscient as well as all- powerful, will certainly disclose their purposes to man in sleep. Chrysippus is, on the same authority, said to have written a volume on the interpretation of dreams as divine portents. Cicero s brother Quintus, who here defends the orthodox theory of dreams, speaks of a skilled interpretation of dreams which is a true divination, even though, like all other arts in which men have to pro ceed on conjecture and on artificial rules, it is not infallible. The current views of dreams of classic antiquity are supposed to be to some extent embodied in the Oi eipoKpm/ax of Daldianus Artemidorus of Ephesus (written about the year 170). Here the interpretation of dreams is reduced to a body of elaborate rules. To dream of a particular element, as fire, air, &c., of a particular plant, part of the body, and so on, always signifies the same kind of event for the same kind of person. It is the over-looking of tho age, social condition, &c., of the dreamer which, in the view of Artemidorus, leads to the abuse of dream-inter pretation. He attempts to draw a distinction between ompos, a vision having a real bearing on events, and IvvTTViov, a mere dream having no actual significance ; but this does not, according to Liddell and Scott, correspond with classical usage. The divine origin of dreams became a doctrine of the Christian church. It appears in the writings of the fathers, being defended partly on biblical, partly on classic, authority. Synesius of Gyrene (born 375) has left a treatise on dreams (irepl ivvnvCutv}. He puts forward certain psychological hypotheses drawn largely from Plato and Plotiuus and ascribes to the imagination