DREAMS
155
DREAMS
created, that Daldianus Artemidorus compiled his
"Oneirocritica", in which rules were laid down where-
by any one could interpret his own dreams.
In the hght 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 as- serted in Num., xii, 6, and stiU more explicitly in Job, xxxiii, 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 Ijeds: 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 occm-s 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 Abi- melech (Gen., xx, 3); of Jacob (Gen., xxviii, 12; xxxi, 10) ; of Solomon (III K., iii, 5-15) ; of Xabuchodonosor (Dan., ii, 19); of Daniel (Dan., \Ti, 1); of Joseph (Matth., i, 20; ii, 13); of St. Paul (.\cts, xxiii, 11; xxvii, 23), unless we should interpret these passages as referring to visions granted to the .A.postle 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 daj-s", spoken of in this connexion, should be understood to be God; in other instances He is said to speak through an angel, as in the dreams narrated by St. Matthew and St. Paul. The Bible records other dreams, which, though prophetic, are not distinctly said to come from God (Gen., xxxvii, 6; xl, 5; xh, 1; Judges, vii, 13; II Mach., xv, 11). It appears, however, from the circumstances and from their prophetic import, that their Divine origin eamiot be doubted; at least their interpretation is declared (Gen., xl, S) to "be- long 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 pheno- menon, has undoubtedly its laws, which, however ob- scure they may be to man, are established by God, and obey His bidding. But since man may be easily de- luded, it is needful that God in using natural causes should supply such evidences as will make His inter- vention unmistakable. Sometimes these evidences are manifested to the dreamer, at other times to the in- terpreter, if one be necessary; but they -n-ill never fail. The analogy of the foregoing reasons with those brought forward by theologians to prove the possibil- ity of revelation is readily perceived. In fact, there is here more than a mere analogj'; 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 possibihty of a superna- tural order.
All the dreams actually recorded in Holy Writ came unsought. Some scholars infer from the words of Saul (I K., xxviii, 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 seek- ing 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 as- serted that the Israelites would seek prophetic dreams by resorting to a well-known sanctuary and sleeping there. The two instances sometimes adduced in this connexion, namely the dream of Jacob at Bethel (Gen., xxviii, 12-19) and that of Solomon at Gabaon (III K., iii, 5-15), do not bear out such an affirmation. ^ In both ca.ses the dream, far from being sought, was
unexpected ; moreover, with regard to the former, it is
evident from the narration that Jacob was quite un-
aware beforehand of the holiness of the place he slept
in. His inference on the next morning as to its sacred-
ness was inspired by the object of the dream, and his
conduct in this circumstance seems even to betray
some fear of having imknowingly defiled it by sleeping
there.
It should not be concluded from the above remarks that there were no errors with regard to dreams and dream-interpretation m the minds of individual Israel- ites. Like their neighbours, they had a tendency to consider all dreams as omens, and attach importance to their significance. But this tendency was con- stantly held in check by the more enlightened and more religious part of the nation. Besides the prolii- bition to "observe dreams", embodied in the Law (Lev., xix, 26; Deut., xviii, 10), the Prophets, from the eighth century e. c. onwards, repeatedly warned the people against giving " heed to their dreams which they dream" (Jer., xxix, S). "Dreams follow many cares", says Ecclesiastes (v, 2); and Ben Sirach -ndsely adds that "dreams have deceived many, and they have failed that put their trust in them" (Ecclus., xxxiv, 7). This was, according to II Par., xxxiii, 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" (Jer., xxiii, 32; cf. Zach., x, 2; etc.). From these and other indi- cations it appears clear that the reUgion of Israel was kept pure from superstition connected with dreams. True, a mere glance at the respective dates of the above-quoted passages suggests 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 Restora- tion; 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-offi- cials, nor later aroimd the sjmagogues. 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 re- sort to natural skill 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. L'udoubtedly 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 commimity, 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 •nTiters. This opinion they based mainly on Biljlical authority; occasionally they appealed 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 author- ized 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 the Faith viewed ordinary and natural dreams. In general they repeated to the Christians the prohibitions and warn- ings of the Old Testament, and denounced in particu- lar the superstitious tendency to consider dreams as omens. It may suffice in this connexion to recall the names of St Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory the Great, whose teaching on the
