---
title: "On Divination · De divinatione"
author: "Cicero"
translator: "William Armistead Falconer"
languages: [la, en]
shelf: "Classical Latin"
section: 9 of 9
url: https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-de-divinatione/9/
cite: "Cicero, tr. William Armistead Falconer, On Divination · De divinatione, section 9. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-de-divinatione/9/"
---

# On Divination · De divinatione

*Cicero, tr. William Armistead Falconer*

Can the future be known? Cicero’s brother Quintus defends omens, dreams and oracles; Cicero takes them apart.

> Latin: ed. William Armistead Falconer, from the Perseus Digital Library (canonical-latinLit, phi0474.phi053, CC BY-SA 4.0).

> English: William Armistead Falconer, from the Perseus Digital Library (phi0474.phi053.perseus-eng1). Notes are not included.

> Rows follow the references the two texts share (books, chapters and sections), cut where both reach the end of a sentence.

## 9. Book II · sections 121–150

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-de-divinatione/9/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-de-divinatione/9/#p-N

[¶0] 121. "By applying conjecture to the countless delusions of drunk or crazy men we may sometimes deduce what appears to be a real prophecy; for who, if he shoots at a mark all day long, will not occasionally hit it? We sleep every night and there is scarcely ever a night when we do not dream; then do we wonder that our dreams come true sometimes? Nothing is so uncertain as a cast of dice and yet there is no one who plays often who does not sometimes make a Venus-throw and occasionally twice or thrice in succession. Then are we, like fools, to prefer to say that it happened by the direction of Venus rather than by chance? And if we are to put no trust in false visions at other times I do not see what especial virtue there is in sleep to entitle its false visions to be taken as true.

> Latin: 121. “Iam ex insanorum aut ebriorum visis innumerabilia coniectura trahi possunt, quae futura videantur. est enim, qui totum diem iaculans non aliquando conliniet? noctes dormimus, neque ulla est fere, qua non somniemus, et miramur aliquando id quod somniarimus evadere? est tam incertum quam talorum iactus? tamen nemo est quin saepe iactans Venerium iaciat aliquando, non numquam etiam iterum ac tertium. igitur, ut inepti, Veneris id impulsu fieri malumus quam casu dicere? ceteris temporibus falsis visis credendum non est, non video, quid praecipui somnus habeat, in quo valeant falsa pro veris.”

[¶1] 122. On the other hand if nature had intended that sleepers should do what they dreamed, persons on going to bed would always have to be tied, otherwise they would commit more follies in their dreams than any madman ever did. "And if, because of their unreality, we are to have no faith in the visions of the insane, I do not understand why we place any confidence in dreams, which are far more confused. Is it because the insane do not tell their delusions to interpreters of visions while dreamers do? I ask you this: suppose I wished to read, write, or sing, or to play on the lute, or to solve some problem in geometry, physics, or logic, must I wait for a dream, or must I depend upon the peculiar knowledge which each of these several arts or sciences requires and without which none of them can be utilized or mastered? No; and not even if I wanted to sail a ship, would I pilot it as I might have dreamed I should; for the punishment would be immediate.

> Latin: 122. “Quodsi ita natura paratum esset, ut ea dormientes agerent, quae somniarent, alligandi omnes essent, qui cubitum irent; maiores enim quam ulli insani efficerent motus somniantes.” “Quodsi insanorum visis fides non est habenda, quia falsa sunt, cur credatur somniantium visis, quae multo etiam perturbatiora sunt, non intellego An quod insani sua visa coniectori non narrant, narrant, qui somniaverunt? etiam, si velim scribere quid, aut legere, aut canere, vel voce vel fidibus, aut geometricum quiddam, aut physicum, aut dialecticum explicare, somniumne exspectandum sit, an ars adhibenda, sine qua nihil earum rerum nec fieri nec expediri potest?, ne si navigare quidem velim, ita gubernem ut somniaverim; praesens enim poena sit.”

[¶2] 123. What would be the sense in the sick seeking relief from an interpreter of dreams rather than from a physician? Or do you think that Aesculapius and Serapis have the power to prescribe a cure for our bodily ills through the medium of a dream and that Neptune cannot aid pilots through the same means? or think you that though Minerva will prescribe physic in a dream without the aid of a physician, yet that the Muses will not employ dreams to impart a knowledge of reading, writing, and of other arts? If knowledge of a remedy for disease were conveyed by means of dreams, knowledge of the arts just mentioned would also be given by dreams. But since knowledge of these arts is not so conveyed neither is the knowledge of medicine. The theory that the medical art was imparted by means of dreams having been disproved, the basis of a belief in dreams is utterly destroyed.

> Latin: 123. “igitur convenit aegros a coniectore somniorum potius quam a medico petere medicinam? An Aesculapius an Serapis potest nobis praescribere per somnium curationem valetudinis, Neptunus gubernantibus non potest? et si sine medico medicinam dabit Minerva, Musae scribendi, legendi, ceterarum artium scientiam somniantibus non dabunt? At si curatio daretur valetudinis, haec quoque, quae dixi, darentur; quae quoniam non dantur, medicina non datur. sublata tollitur omnis auctoritas somniorum.”

[¶3] 124. "But, though the conclusion just stated is obvious, let us now look deeper into the question. Surely you must assume, either that there is a Divine Power which, in planning for our good, gives us information by means of dreams; or that, because of some natural connexion and association—the Greeks call it sumpa/qeia—interpreters of dreams know what sort of a dream is required to fit any situation and what sort of a result will follow any dream; or that neither of these suppositions is true, but that the usual result or consequence of every dream is known by a consistent system of rules based on long-continued observation. In the first place, then, it must be understood that there is no divine power which creates dreams. And indeed it is perfectly clear that none of the visions seen in dreams have their origin in the will of the gods; for the gods, for our sakes, would so interpose that we might be able to foresee the future.

> Latin: 124. “Sed haec quoque in promptu fuerint, nunc interiora videamus. enim divina vis quaedam consulens nobis somniorum significationes facit; aut coniectores ex quadam convenientia et coniunctione naturae, quam vocant συμπάθειαν, quid cuique rei conveniat ex somniis, et quid quamque rem sequatur, intellegunt; aut eorum neutrum est, sed quaedam observatio constans atque diuturna est, cum quid visum secundum quietem sit, quid evenire et quid sequi soleat. igitur intellegendum est nullam vim esse divinam effectricem somniorum. illud quidem perspicuum est, nulla visa somniorum proficisci a numine deorum; nostra enim causa di id facerent, ut providere futura possemus.”

[¶4] 125. "But how often, pray, do you find anyone who pays any attention to dreams or who understands or remembers them? On the other hand, how many treat them with disdain, and regard a belief in them as the superstition of a weak and effeminate mind! Moreover, why does God, in planning for the good of the human race, convey his warnings by means of dreams which men consider unworthy not only of worrying about, but even of remembering? For it is impossible that God does not know how people generally regard dreams; and to do anything needlessly and without a cause is unworthy of a god and is inconsistent even with the habits of right-thinking men. And hence, if most dreams are unnoticed and disregarded, either God is ignorant of that fact, or he does a vain thing in conveying information by means of dreams; but neither supposition accords with the nature of a god, therefore, it must be admitted that God conveys no information by means of dreams.

> Latin: 125. “Quotus igitur est quisque, qui somniis pareat, qui intellegat, qui meminerit? quam multi vero, qui contemnant eamque superstitionem imbecilli animi atque anilis putent! est igitur cur his hominibus consulens deus somniis moneat eos qui illa non modo cura, sed ne memoria quidem digna ducant? enim ignorare deus potest, qua mente quisque sit, nec frustra ac sine causa quid facere dignum deo est, quod abhorret etiam ab hominis constantia., si pleraque somnia aut ignorantur aut negleguntur, aut nescit hoc deus aut frustra somniorum significatione utitur; sed horum neutrum in deum cadit; nihil igitur a deo somniis significari fatendum est.”

[¶5] 126. "I also ask, if God gives us these visions as forewarnings, why does he not give them to us when we are awake rather than when we are asleep? For, whether our souls in sleep are impelled by some external and foreign force; or whether they are self-moved; or whether there is some other cause why, during sleep, we imagine ourselves seeing or hearing, or doing certain things—whatever the cause, it would apply just as well when we are awake. If the gods did send us warnings in our sleep and for our good they would do the same for us when we are awake, especially since, as Chrysippus says in replying to the Academicians, appearances seen when we are awake are much more distinct and trustworthy than those seen in dreams. It would, therefore, have been more in keeping with the beneficence of gods, in consulting for our good, to send us clear visions in our waking moments rather than unintelligible ones in our dreams. But since that is not the case, dreams ought not to be held divine.

> Latin: 126. “Illud etiam require, cur, si deus ista visa nobis providendi causa dat, non vigilantibus potius det quam dormientibus? enim externus et adventicius pulsus animos dormientium commovet, sive per se ipsi animi moventur, sive quae causa alia est cur secundum quietem aliquid videre, audire, agere videamur, eadem causa vigilantibus esse poterat; idque si nostra causa di secundum quietem facerent, vigilantibus idem facerent, praesertim cum Chrysippus Academicos refellens permulto clariora et certiora esse dicat quae vigilantibus videantur quam quae somniantibus. igitur divina beneficentia dignius, cum consulerent nobis, clariora visa dare vigilantibus quam obscuriora per somnum. quoniam non fit, somnia divina putanda non sunt.”

[¶6] 127. And, further, what is the need of a method which, instead of being direct, is so circuitous and roundabout that we have to employ men to interpret our dreams? And if it be true that God consults for our advantage he would say: 'Do this,' 'Don't do that,' and not give us visions when we are awake rather than when we are asleep. "And further, would anybody dare to say that all dreams are true? ' Some dreams are true,' says Ennius, ' but not necessarily all.' Pray how do you distinguish between the two? What mark have the false and what the true? And if God sends the true, whence come the false? Surely if God sends the false ones too what is more untrustworthy than God? Besides what is more stupid than to excite the souls of mortals with false and lying visions? But if true visions are divine while the false and meaningless ones are from nature, what sort of caprice decided that God made the one and nature made the other, rather than that God made them all, which your school denies, or that nature made them all? Since you deny that God made them all you must admit that nature made them all. By 'nature,' in this connexion, I mean that force because of which the soul can never be stationary and free from motion and activity. And when, because of the weariness of the body, the soul can use neither the limbs nor the senses, it lapses into varied and untrustworthy visions, which emanate from what Aristotle terms 'the clinging remnants of the soul's waking acts and thoughts.' These 'remnants,' when aroused, sometimes produce strange types of dreams. Now if some of these dreams are true and others false, I should like very much to know by what mark they may be distinguished. If there is none, why should we listen to your interpreters? But if there is one, I am eager for them to tell me what it is, but they will grow confused when I ask and will not answer.

> Latin: 127. “vero quid opus est circumitione et amfractu, ut sit utendum interpretibus somniorum potius quam directo., siquidem nobis consulebat, ‘Hoc facito,’ ‘hoc ne feceris,’ diceret idque visum vigilanti potius quam dormienti daret.” “Iam vero quis dicere audeat vera omnia esse somnia? ‘Aliquot somnia vera,’ inquit Ennius, ‘sed omnia non est necesse.’ Quae est tandem ista distinctio? quae vera, quae falsa habet? et, si vera a deo mittuntur, falsa unde nascuntur? nam si ea quoque divina quid inconstantius deo? quid inscitius autem est quam mentes mortalium falsis et mendacibus visis concitare? sin vera visa divina sunt, falsa autem et inania humana, quae est ista designandi licentia, ut hoc deus, hoc natura fecerit potius quam aut omnia deus, quod negatis, aut omnia natura? quod quoniam illud negatis, hoc necessario confitendum est.” “autem eam dico, qua numquam animus insistens agitatione et motu esse vacuus potest. cum languore corporis nec membris uti nec sensibus potest, incidit in visa varia et incerta ‘ex reliquiis,’ ut ait Aristoteles, ‘inhaerentibus earum rerum, quas vigilans gesserit aut cogitaverit.’ Quarum perturbatione mirabiles interdum existunt species somniorum; quae si alia falsa, alia vera, qua nota internoscantur, scire sane velim. nulla est, quid istos interpretes audiamus? sin quaepiam est, aveo audire, quae sit; sed haerebunt.”

[¶7] 129. "The question now arises as to which is the more probable: do the immortal gods, who are of surpassing excellence in all things, constantly flit about, not only the beds, but even the lowly pallets of mortals, wherever they may be, and when they find someone snoring, throw at him dark and twisted visions, which scare him from his sleep and which he carries in the morning to a dream-expert to unravel? or does nature bring it to pass that the ever-active soul sees in sleep phantoms of what it saw when the body was awake? Which is more consonant with philosophy: to explain these apparitions by the superstitious theories of fortune-telling hags, or by an explanation based on natural causes? But even if it were possible to draw trustworthy inferences from dreams, it could not be done by those who profess to have that power; for their fraternity is composed of the most shallow and the most ignorant of men. Yet your Stoics assert that no one can be a diviner unless he is a ' wise man.'

> Latin: 129. “Venit enim iam in contentionem, utrum sit probabilius, deosne immortalis, rerum omnium praestantia excellentis, cursare omnium mortalium qui ubique sunt, non modo lectos, verum etiam grabatos et, cum stertentem aliquem viderint, obicere eis visa quaedam tortuosa et obscura, quae illi exterriti somno ad coniectorem mane deferant? an natura fieri ut mobiliter animus agitatus, quod vigilans viderit, dormiens videre videatur? philosophia dignius, sagarum superstitione ista interpretari an explicatione naturae? ut, si iam fieri possit vera coniectura somniorum, tamen isti, qui profitentur, eam facere non possint; ex levissimo enim et indoctissimo genere constant. Stoici autem tui negant quemquam nisi sapientem divinum esse posse.”

[¶8] 130. "Chrysippus, indeed, defines divination in these words: 'The power to see, understand, and explain premonitory signs given to men by the gods.' 'Its duty,' he goes on to say, 'is to know in advance the disposition of the gods towards men, the manner in which that disposition is shown and by what means the gods may be propitiated and their threatened ills averted.' And this same philosopher defines the interpretation of dreams thus: ' It is the power to understand and explain the visions sent by the gods to men in sleep.' Then, if that be true, will just ordinary shrewdness meet these requirements, or rather is there not need of surpassing intelligence and absolutely perfect learning? But I have never seen such a man.

> Latin: 130. “Chrysippus quidem divinationem definit his verbis: ‘vim cognoscentem et videntem et explicantem signa, quae a dis hominibus portendantur; officium autem esse eius praenoscere, dei erga homines mente qua sint quidque significent, quem ad modumque ea procurentur atque expientur.’ Idemque somniorum coniectionem definit hoc modo: ‘esse vim cernentem et explanantem, quae a dis hominibus significentur in somnis.’ Quid ergo? ad haec mediocri opus est prudentia an et ingenio praestanti et eruditione perfecta? autem cognovimus neminem.”

[¶9] 131. "Therefore, even if I granted your contention as to the existence of divination—and this I will never do—still, you must realize that it would be impossible for us to find a diviner. Then what do the gods mean by sending us in our dreams visions which we cannot understand ourselves and which we cannot find anybody to interpret for us? If the gods send us these unintelligible and inexplicable dream-messages they are acting as Carthaginians and Spaniards would if they were to address our Senate in their own vernacular without the aid of an interpreter.

> Latin: 131. “Vide igitur, ne, etiamsi divinationem tibi esse concessero, quod numquam faciam, neminem tamen divinum reperire possimus. autem ista mens est deorum, si neque ea nobis significant in somnis quae ipsi per nos intellegamus, neque ea quorum interpretes habere possimus? similes enim sunt dei, si ea nobis obiciunt, quorum nec scientiam neque explanatorem habeamus, tamquam si Poeni aut Hispani in senatu nostro loquerentur sine interprete.”

[¶10] 132. Besides, what purpose is served by dark and enigmatic dreams? Surely the gods ought to want us to understand the advice they give us for our good. 'Oh!' but you retort,' Are poets and natural philosophers never obscure?' Indeed they are: Euphorion is even too obscure; but Homer is not.

> Latin: 132. “Iam vero quo pertinent obscuritates et aenigmata somniorum? intellegi enim a nobis di velle debebant ea quae nostra causa nos monerent.? poeta nemo physicus obscurus? vero nimis etiam obscurus Euphorion;”

[¶11] 133. Which of them, pray, is the better poet? Heraclitus is very obscure; Democritus is not so in the least: then are they to be compared? But you give me advice and for my good in words that I cannot understand. Then why do you advise me at all? That's like a doctor ordering a patient to take
A bloodless, earth-engendered thing that crawls
And bears its habitation on its back,
instead of saying in common, every-day speech, 'a snail.' Amphion, in a play by Pacuvius, speaks to the Athenians of a creature as
Four-footed, of stature short; rough, shy, and slow;
Fierce-eyed, with tiny head and serpent's neck;
When disembowelled and deprived of life,
It lives for ever in melodious song.
His meaning being too obscure the Athenians replied:
Speak plainer, else we cannot understand.
Whereupon he described it in a single word—'a tortoise.' Couldn't you have said so at first, you cithara-player?

> Latin: 133. “at non Homerus. igitur melior? Heraclitus obscurus, minime Democritus. igitur conferendi? causa me mones, quod non intellegam. me igitur mones? si quis medicus aegroto imperet, ut sumat
terrigenam, herbigradam, domiportam, sanguine cassam,
potius quam hominum more ‘cocleam’ diceret. Pacuvianus Amphio
quadrupes tardigrada, agrestis, humilis, aspera,
capite brevi, cervice anguina, aspecta truci,
eviscerata, inanima, cum animali sono.
dixisset obscurius, tum Attici respondent:
non intellegimus, nisi si aperte dixeris.
ille uno verbo: ‘Testudo.’ Non potueras hoc igitur a principio, citharista, dicere?”

[¶12] 134. "A diviner was consulted by a man who had dreamed that he saw an egg hanging from the bed-cords of the bed in his sleeping-room—the story is from Chrysippus On Dreams—and the diviner answered, 'A treasure is buried under your bed.' The man dug, found a quantity of gold surrounded with silver and sent the diviner as much of the silver as he thought fit. The diviner then inquired, 'Do I get none of the yolk? ' For, in his view, the yolk meant gold, the white of the egg, silver. Now, did no one else ever dream of an egg? If so, then why did this fellow, whoever he was, alone find a treasure by dreaming of an egg? What a lot of poor devils there are, deserving of divine assistance, who never were instructed by a dream how to find a treasure! Furthermore, why was this man given so obscure an intimation as that contained in the fancied resemblance between an egg and a treasure, instead of being as plainly directed as Simonides was when he was bidden not to go on board the ship?

> Latin: 134. “Defert ad coniectorem quidam somniasse se ovum pendere ex fascia lecti sui cubicularis— est hoc in Chrysippi libro somnium—; respondit coniector thesaurum defossum esse sub lecto., invenit auri aliquantum, idque circumdatum argento, misit coniectori quantulum visum est de argento. ille: ‘Nihilne,’ inquit, ‘de vitello?’ id enim ei ex ovo videbatur aurum declarasse reliquum argentum. igitur umquam alius ovum somniavit? cur ergo hic nescio qui thesaurum solus invenit? quam multi inopes digni praesidio deorum nullo somnio ad thesaurum reperiendum admonentur! autem ob causam tam est obscure admonitus ut ex ovo nasceretur thesauri similitudo, potius quam aperte thesaurum quaerere iuberetur, sicut aperte Simonides vetitus est navigare?”

[¶13] 135. My conclusion is that obscure messages by means of dreams are utterly inconsistent with the dignity of gods. "Let us now consider dreams that are clear and direct, like the dream of the man who was killed by the innkeeper at Megara; or like that of Simonides who was warned by the man he had buried not to sail; and also like Alexander's dream, which, to my surprise, my dear Quintus, you passed by without notice: Alexander's intimate friend, Ptolemaeus, had been struck in battle by a poisoned arrow and was at the point of death from his wound and suffering the most excruciating agony. Alexander, while sitting by the bedside of his friend, fell fast asleep. Thereupon, so the story goes, he dreamed that the pet serpent of his mother Olympias appeared to him carrying a root in its mouth and, at the same time, gave him the name of a place close by where it said the root grew. This root, the serpent told him, was of such great virtue that it would effect the speedy cure of Ptolemaeus. As soon as Alexander awoke he related his dream to his friends and men were sent to find the root. It is said that when the root was found it worked the cure not only of Ptolemaeus, but also of many soldiers who had been wounded by the same kind of arrow.

> Latin: 135. “obscura somnia minime consentanea maiestati deorum.” “Ad aperta et clara veniamus, quale est de illo interfecto a caupone Megaris; quale de Simonide, qui ab eo, quem humarat, vetitus est navigare; quale etiam de Alexandro, quod a te praeteritum esse miror, Quinte. Ptolemaeus, familiaris eius, in proelio telo venenato ictus esset eoque vulnere summo cum dolore moreretur, Alexander assidens somno est consopitus. secundum quietem visus ei dicitur draco is, quem mater Olympias alebat, radiculam ore ferre et simul dicere, quo illa loci nasceretur (neque is longe aberat ab eo loco), eius autem esse vim tantam, ut Ptolomaeum facile sanaret. Alexander experrectus narrasset amicis somnium, emissi sunt, qui illam radiculam quaererent; qua inventa et Ptolomaeus sanatus dicitur et multi milites, qui erant eodem genere teli vulnerati.”

[¶14] 136. "You, too, have drawn on history for dreams, a number of which you told. You spoke, for example, of the dreams of the mother of Phalaris, of Cyrus the Elder, of the mother of Dionysius, of the Carthaginians Hamilcar and Hannibal, and of Publius Decius. You mentioned that much-spoken-of dream about the slave who opened the votive games, also the dream of Gaius Gracchus and the recent one of Caecilia, the daughter of Balearicus. But these are other people's dreams and hence we know nothing about them and some of them are fabrications perhaps. For who stands sponsor for them? And what have we to say of our own dreams? Of your dream of me and of my horse emerging from the river and appearing on the bank? and of my dream of Marius, attended by his laurelled fasces, ordering me to be conducted to his monument? "All dreams, my dear Quintus, have one explanation and, in heaven's name, let us see that it is not set at naught by superstition and perversity.

> Latin: 136. “Multa etiam sunt a te ex historiis prolata somnia, matris Phalaridis, Cyri superioris, matris Dionysi, Poeni Hamilcaris, Hannibalis, P. Deci; pervulgatum iam illud de praesule, C. Gracchi etiam et recens Caeciliae, Baliarici filiae, somnium. haec externa ob eamque causam ignota nobis sunt, non nulla etiam ficta fortasse. enim auctor istorum? De nostris somniis quid habemus dicere? tu de emerso me et equo ad ripam, ego de Mario cum fascibus laureatis me in suum deduci iubente monumentum?” “somniorum, Quinte, una ratio est; quae, per deos immortalis! videamus ne nostra superstitione et depravatione superetur.”

[¶15] 137. Now what Marius do you think it was I saw? His 'likeness' or 'phantom,' I suppose—at least that is what Democritus thinks. Whence did the 'phantom' come? He would have it that 'phantoms ' emanate from material bodies and from actual forms. Then, it was the body of Marius from which my ' phantom' came? ' No,' says Democritus, ' but from his body that was.' So that 'phantom' of Marius was pursuing me to the plains of Atina? ' Oh, but the universe is full of “phantoms”; no picture of anything can be formed in the mind except as the result of the impact of “phantoms.”

> Latin: 137. “enim tu Marium visum a me putas? ‘Speciem,’ credo, eius et ‘imaginem,’ ut Democrito videtur. profectam ‘imaginem’? ‘A corporibus’ enim solidis et a certis figuris vult fluere ‘imagines.’ Quod igitur Marii corpus erat? ‘Ex eo,’ inquit, ‘quod fuerat.’ Ista igitur me ‘imago’ Mari in campum Atinatem persequebatur? ‘Plena sunt “imaginum” omnia’; nulla enim species cogitari potest nisi pulsu ‘imaginum.’”

[¶16] 138. 'Then are these 'phantoms' of yours so obedient to our beck and call that they come the instant we summon them? And is this true even of the 'phantoms' of things that do not exist? For what is there so unreal and unheard of that we cannot form a mental picture of it? We even shape things which we have never seen—as the sites of towns and the faces of men.

> Latin: 138. “ergo? istae ‘imagines’ ita nobis dicto audientes sunt ut, simul atque velimus, accurrant? etiamne earum rerum quae nullae sunt? est enim forma tam invisitata, tam nulla, quam non sibi ipse fingere animus possit? ut, quae numquam vidimus, ea tamen informata habeamus, oppidorum situs, hominum figuras.”

[¶17] 139. Then, by your theory, when I think of the walls of Babylon or of the face of Homer, some 'phantom' of what I have in mind 'strikes upon my brain'! Hence it is possible for us to know everything we wish to know, since there is nothing of which we cannot think. Therefore no 'phantoms from the outside steal in upon our souls in sleep; nor do 'phantoms ' stream forth at all. In fact I never knew anybody who could say nothing with more ponderous gravity than Democritus. "The soul is of such a force and nature that, when we are awake, it is active, not because of any extraneous impulse, but because of its own inherent power of self-motion and a certain incredible swiftness. When the soul is supported by the bodily members and by the five senses its powers of perception, thought, and apprehension are more trustworthy. But when these physical aids are removed and the body is inert in sleep, the soul then moves of itself. And so, in that state, visions flit about it, actions occur and it seems to hear and say many things.

> Latin: 139. “igitur, cum aut muros Babylonis aut Homeri faciem cogito, ‘imago’ illorum me aliqua pellit? igitur, quae volumus, nota nobis esse possunt; nihil est enim, de quo cogitare nequeamus; nullae ergo ‘imagines’ obrepunt in animos dormientium extrinsecus, nec omnino fluunt ullae, nec cognovi quemquam, qui maiore auctoritate nihil diceret.” “Animorum est ea vis eaque natura, ut vigeant vigilantes nullo adventicio pulsu, sed suo motu incredibili quadam celeritate. cum sustinentur membris et corpore et sensibus, omnia certiora cernunt, cogitant, sentiunt. autem haec subtracta sunt desertusque animus languore corporis, tum agitatur ipse per sese. in eo et formae versantur et actiones, et multa audiri, multa dici videntur.”

[¶18] 140. When the soul itself is weakened and relaxed many such sights and sounds, you may be sure, are seen and heard in all manner of confusion and diversity. Then especially do the 'remnants' of our waking thoughts and deeds move and stir within the soul. For example, in the time of my banishment Marius was often in my mind as I recalled with what great fortitude and courage he had borne his own heavy misfortunes, and this I think is the reason why I dreamed about him. "As for your dream, it occurred while you were thinking and worrying about me and then you had the vision of me as I suddenly arose from the river. For in the souls of us both were 'traces of our waking thoughts,' but with some added features, of course: as, for example, my dreaming of Marius's monument and your dreaming that the horse on which I rode sank with me and then reappeared.

> Latin: 140. “scilicet in imbecillo remissoque animo multa omnibus modis confusa et variata versantur, maximeque ‘reliquiae’ rerum earum moventur in animis et agitantur de quibus vigilantes aut cogitavimus aut egimus; ut mihi temporibus illis multum in animo Marius versabatur recordanti, quam ille gravem suum casum magno animo, quam constanti tulisset. credo causam de illo somniandi fuisse.” “Tibi autem de me cum sollicitudine cogitanti subito sum visus emersus e flumine. enim in utriusque nostrum animis ‘vigilantium cogitationum vestigia.’ At quaedam adiuncta sunt, ut mihi de monumento Mari, tibi, quod equus, in quo ego vehebar, mecum una demersus rursus apparuit.”

[¶19] 141. But do you suppose that there ever would have been any old woman crazy enough to believe in dreams, if by some lucky accident or chance they had not come true sometimes? But let us consider Alexander's dream of the talking serpent. The story may be true and it may be wholly false. In either case it is no miracle; for he did not hear the serpent speak, but thought he heard it and, strangest thing of all, he thought it spoke while it held the root in its mouth! But nothing seems strange to a man when he is dreaming. Now, if Alexander ever had such a vivid and trustworthy dream as this, I want to ask why he never had another one like it and why other men have not had many of the same kind? As for me, except for that dream about Marius, I really never had one that I can recall. Think then how many nights in my long life I have spent in vain!

> Latin: 141. “An tu censes ullam anum tam deliram futuram fuisse ut somniis crederet, nisi ista casu non numquam forte temere concurrerent? Alexandro draco loqui visus est. Potest omnino hoc esse falsum, potest verum; sed utrum est non est mirabile; non enim audivit ille draconem loquentem, sed est visus audire; et quidem, quo maius sit, cum radicem ore teneret locutus est. nihil est magnum somnianti. autem cur Alexandro tam illustre somnium, tam certum, nec huic eidem alias, nec multa ceteris? quidem praeter hoc Marianum nihil sane, quod meminerim. igitur consumptae tot noctes tam longa in aetate!”

[¶20] 142. Moreover, at the present time, owing to the interruption of my public labours, I have ceased my nocturnal studies, and (contrary to my former practice) I have added afternoon naps. Yet despite all this time spent in sleep I have not received a single prophecy in a dream, certainly not one about the great events now going on. Indeed, I never seem to be dreaming more than when I see the magistrates in the forum and the Senate in its chamber. "Coming now to the second branch of the present topic, is there some such natural connecting link, which, as I said before, the Greeks callsumpa/qeia, that the finding of a treasure must be deduced from dreaming of an egg? Of course physicians, from certain symptoms, know the incipiency and progress of a disease; and it is claimed that from some kinds of dreams they even can gather certain indications as to a patient's health, as whether the internal humours of the body are excessive or deficient. But what natural bond of union is there between dreams, on the one hand, and treasures, legacies, public office, victory and many other things of the same kind, on the other?

> Latin: 142. “quidem propter intermissionem forensis operae et lucubrationes detraxi et meridiationes addidi, quibus uti antea non solebam, nec tam multum dormiens ullo somnio sum admonitus, tantis praesertim de rebus, nec mihi magis umquam videor, quam cum aut in foro magistratus aut in curia senatum video, somniare.” “—ex divisione hoc secundum est— quae est continuatio coniunctioque naturae quam, ut dixi, vocant συμπάθειαν, eius modi, ut thesaurus ex ovo intellegi debeat? medici ex quibusdam rebus et advenientis et crescentis morbos intellegunt, non nullas etiam valetudinis significationes, ut hoc ipsum, pleni enectine simus, ex quodam genere somniorum intellegi posse dicunt. vero et hereditas et honos et victoria et multa generis eiusdem qua cum somniis naturali cognatione iunguntur?”

[¶21] 143. A person, it is said, while dreaming of coition, ejected gravel. In this case I can see a relation between the dream and the result; for the vision presented to the sleeper was such as to make it clear that what happened was due to natural causes and not to the delusion. But by what law of nature did Simonides receive that vision which forbade him to sail? or what was the connexion between the laws of nature and the dream of Alcibiades in which, according to history, shortly before his death, he seemed to be enveloped in the cloak of his mistress? Later, when his body had been cast out and was lying unburied and universally neglected, his mistress covered it with her mantle. Then do you say that this dream was united by some natural tie with the fate that befell Alcibiades, or did chance cause both the apparition and the subsequent event?

> Latin: 143. “quidam, cum in somnis complexu Venerio iungeretur, calculos eiecisse. sympathian; visum est enim tale obiectum dormienti, ut id, quod evenit naturae vis, non opinio erroris effecerit. igitur natura obtulit illam speciem Simonidi a qua vetaretur navigare? aut quid naturae copulatum habuit Alcibiadis quod scribitur somnium? qui paulo ante interitum visus est in somnis amicae esse amictus amiculo. cum esset proiectus inhumatus ab omnibusque desertus iaceret, amica corpus eius texit suo pallio. hoc inerat in rebus futuris et causas naturalis habebat, an, et ut videretur et ut eveniret, casus effecit?”

[¶22] 144. "Furthermore, is it not a fact that the conjectures of the interpreters of dreams give evidence of their authors' sagacity rather than afford any proof of a relation between dreams and the laws of nature? For example, a runner, who was planning to set out for the Olympic games, dreamed that he was riding in a chariot drawn by four horses. In the morning he went to consult an interpreter, who said to him, 'You will win, for that is implied in the speed and strength of horses.' Later the runner went to Antipho, who said, 'You are bound to lose, for do you not see that four ran ahead of you? And behold another runner!—for the books of Chrysippus and Antipater are full of such dreams—but to return to the runner: he reported to an interpreter that he had dreamed of having been changed into an eagle. The interpreter said to him, 'You are the victor, for no bird flies faster than the eagle.' This runner also consulted Antipho. 'Simpleton,' said the latter, 'don't you see that you are beaten? For that bird is always pursuing and driving other birds before it and itself is always last.'

> Latin: 144. “Quid? ipsorum interpretum coniecturae nonne magis ingenia declarant eorum quam vim consensumque naturae?, ad Olympia proficisci cogitans, visus est in somnis curru quadrigarum vehi. ad coniectorem. At ille: ‘Vinces,’ inquit; ‘id enim celeritas significat et vis equorum.’ idem ad Antiphontem. autem: ‘Vincare,’ inquit, ‘necesse est; an non intellegis quattuor ante te cucurrisse?’ Ecce alius cursor—atque horum somniorum et talium plenus est Chrysippi liber, plenus Antipatri—sed ad cursorem redeo: ad interpretem detulit aquilam se in somnis visum esse factum. At ille: ‘Vicisti; ista enim avi volat nulla vehementius.’ Huic eidem Antipho: ‘Baro,’ inquit, ‘victum te esse non vides? ista enim avis insectans alias avis et agitans semper ipsa postrema est.’”

[¶23] 145. "A married woman who was desirous of a child and was in doubt whether she was pregnant or not, dreamed that her womb had been sealed. She referred the dream to an interpreter. He told her that since her womb was sealed conception was impossible. But another interpreter said, 'You are pregnant, for it is not customary to seal that which is empty.' Then what is the dream-interpreter's art other than a means of using one's wits to deceive? And those incidents which I have given and the numberless ones collected by the Stoics prove nothing whatever except the shrewdness of men who employ slight analogies in order to draw now one inference and now another. There are certain indications from the condition of the pulse and breath and from many other symptoms in sickness by means of which physicians foretell the course of a disease. When pilots see cuttle-fish leaping or dolphins betaking themselves to a haven they believe that a storm is at hand. In such cases signs are given which are traceable to natural causes and explicable by reason, but that is far from true of the dreams spoken of a little while ago.

> Latin: 145. “Parere quaedam matrona cupiens, dubitans essetne praegnans, visa est in quiete obsignatam habere naturam.. Negavit eam, quoniam obsignata fuisset, concipere potuisse. At alter praegnantem esse dixit; nam inane obsignari nihil solere. est ars coniectoris eludentis ingenio? an ea, quae dixi, et innumerabilia, quae collecta habent Stoici, quicquam significant nisi acumen hominum ex similitudine aliqua coniecturam modo huc, modo illuc ducentium? signa quaedam habent ex venis et spiritu aegroti multisque ex aliis futura praesentiunt; gubernatores cum exsultantis lolligines viderunt aut delphinos se in portum conicientes, tempestatem significari putant. ratione explicari et ad naturam revocari facile possunt, ea vero, quae paulo ante dixi, nullo modo.”

[¶24] 146. "In our consideration of dreams we come now to the remaining point left for discussion, which is your contention that 'by long-continued observation of dreams and by recording the results an art has been evolved.' Really? Then, it is possible, I suppose, to ' observe ' dreams? If so, how? For they are of infinite variety and there is no imaginable thing too absurd, too involved, or too abnormal for us to dream about it. How, then, is it possible for us either to remember this countless and ever-changing mass of visions or to observe and record the subsequent results? Astronomers have recorded the movements of the planets and thereby have discovered an orderly course of the stars, not thought of before. But tell me, if you can, what is the orderly course of dreams and what is the harmonious relation between them and subsequent events? And by what means can the true be distinguished from the false, in view of the fact that the same dreams have certain consequences for one person and different consequences for another and seeing also that even for the same individual the same dream is not always followed by the same result? As a rule we do not believe a liar even when he tells the truth, but, to my surprise, if one dream turns out to be true, your Stoics do not withdraw their belief in the prophetic value of that one though it is only one out of many; rather, from the character of the one true dream, they establish the character of countless others that are false.

> Latin: 146. “At enim observatio diuturna (haec enim pars una restat) notandis rebus fecit artem. Ain tandem? somnia observari possunt? quonam modo? sunt enim innumerabiles varietates; nihil tam praepostere, tam incondite, tam monstruose cogitari potest, quod non possimus somniare. modo igitur, haec infinita et semper nova aut memoria complecti aut observando notare possumus? motus errantium stellarum notaverunt; inventus est enim ordo in eis stellis, qui non putabatur. tandem qui sit ordo aut quae concursatio somniorum? quo modo autem distingui possunt vera somnia a falsis, cum eadem et aliis aliter evadant et eisdem non semper eodem modo? ut mihi mirum videatur, cum mendaci homini ne verum quidem dicenti credere soleamus, quo modo isti, si somnium verum evasit aliquod, non ex multis potius uni fidem derogent quam ex uno innumerabilia confirment.”

[¶25] 147. "Therefore, if God is not the creator of dreams; if there is no connexion between them and the laws of nature; and finally, if, by means of observation no art of divining can be found in them, it follows that absolutely no reliance can be placed in dreams. This becomes especially evident when we consider that those who have the dreams deduce no prophecies from them; that those who interpret them depend upon conjecture and not upon nature; that in the course of the almost countless ages, chance has worked more miracles through all other agencies than through the agency of dreams; and, finally, that nothing is more uncertain than conjecture, which may be led not only into varying, but sometimes even into contradictory, conclusions.

> Latin: 147. “Si, igitur, neque deus est effector somniorum, neque naturae societas ulla cum somniis neque observatione inveniri potuit scientia, effectum est, ut nihil prorsus somniis tribuendum sit, praesertim cum illi ipsi qui ea vident nihil divinent, ei qui interpretantur coniecturam adhibeant, non naturam, casus autem innumerabilibus paene saeculis in omnibus plura mirabilia quam in somniorum visis effecerit, neque coniectura, quae in varias partis duci possit, non numquam etiam in contrarias, quicquam sit incertius.”

[¶26] 148. "Then let dreams, as a means of divination, be rejected along with the rest. Speaking frankly, superstition, which is widespread among the nations, has taken advantage of human weakness to cast its spell over the mind of almost every man. This same view was stated in my treatise On the Nature of the Gods; and to prove the correctness of that view has been the chief aim of the present discussion. For I thought that I should be rendering a great service both to myself and to my countrymen if I could tear this superstition up by the roots. But I want it distinctly understood that the destruction of superstition does not mean the destruction of religion. For I consider it the part of wisdom to preserve the institutions of our forefathers by retaining their sacred rites and ceremonies. Furthermore, the celestial order and the beauty of the universe compel me to confess that there is some excellent and eternal Being, who deserves the respect and homage of men.

> Latin: 148. “igitur haec quoque somniorum divinatio pariter cum ceteris., ut vere loquamur, superstitio, fusa per gentis, oppressit omnium fere animos atque hominum imbecillitatem occupavit. et in eis libris dictum est qui sunt de Natura Deorum, et hac disputatione id maxime egimus. enim et nobismet ipsis et nostris profuturi videbamur, si eam funditus sustulissemus. vero—id enim diligenter intellegi volo—superstitione tollenda religio tollitur. et maiorum instituta tueri sacris caerimoniisque retinendis sapientis est, et esse praestantem aliquam aeternamque naturam, et eam suspiciendam admirandamque hominum generi pulchritudo mundi ordoque rerum caelestium cogit confiteri.”

[¶27] 149. "Wherefore, just as it is a duty to extend the influence of true religion, which is closely associated with the knowledge of nature, so it is a duty to weed out every root of superstition. For superstition is ever at your heels to urge you on; it follows you at every turn. -It is with you when you listen to a prophet, or an omen; when you offer sacrifices or watch the flight of birds; when you consult an astrologer or a soothsayer; when it thunders or lightens or there is a bolt from on high; or when some so-called prodigy is born or is made. And since necessarily some of these signs are nearly always being given, no one who believes in them can ever remain in a tranquil state of mind.

> Latin: 149. “Quam ob rem, ut religio propaganda etiam est, quae est iuncta cum cognitione naturae, sic superstitionis stirpes omnes eiiciendae. Instat enim et urget et, quo te cumque verteris, persequitur, sive tu vatem sive tu omen audieris, sive immolaris sive avem aspexeris, si Chaldaeum, si haruspicem videris, si fulserit, si tonuerit, si tactum aliquid erit de caelo, si ostenti simile natum factumve quippiam; quorum necesse est plerumque aliquid eveniat, ut numquam liceat quieta mente consistere.”

[¶28] 150. “Sleep is regarded as a refuge from every toil and care; but it is actually made the fruitful source of worry and fear. In fact dreams would be less regarded on their own account and would be viewed with greater indifference had they not been taken under the guardianship of philosophers—not philosophers of the meaner sort, but those of the keenest wit, competent to see what follows logically and what does not—men who are considered well-nigh perfect and infallible. Indeed, if their arrogance had not been resisted by Carneades, it is probable that by this time they would have been adjudged the only philosophers. While most of my war of words has been with these men, it is not because I hold them in especial contempt, but on the contrary, it is because they seem to me to defend their own views with the greatest acuteness and skill. Moreover, it is characteristic of the Academy to put forward no conclusions of its own, but to approve those which seem to approach nearest to the truth; to compare arguments; to draw forth all that may be said in behalf of any opinion; and, without asserting any authority of its own, to leave the judgement of the inquirer wholly free. That same method, which by the way we inherited from Socrates, I shall, if agreeable to you, my dear Quintus, follow as often as possible in our future discussions.” “Nothing could please me better,” Quintus replied. When this was said, we arose.

> Latin: 150. “videtur omnium laborum et sollicitudinum esse somnus. At ex eo ipso plurimae curae metusque nascuntur; qui quidem ipsi per se minus valerent et magis contemnerentur, nisi somniorum patrocinium philosophi suscepissent, nec ei quidem contemptissimi, sed in primis acuti et consequentia et repugnantia videntes, qui prope iam absoluti et perfecti putantur. Quorum licentiae nisi Carneades restitisset, haud scio an soli iam philosophi iudicarentur. quibus omnis fere nobis disceptatio contentioque est, non quod eos maxime contemnamus, sed quod videntur acutissime sententias suas prudentissimeque defendere. autem proprium sit Academiae iudicium suum nullum interponere, ea probare quae simillima veri videantur, conferre causas, et quid in quamque sententiam dici possit expromere, nulla adhibita sua auctoritate iudicium audientium relinquere integrum ac liberum. hanc consuetudinem, a Socrate traditam, eaque inter nos, si tibi, Quinte frater, placebit, quam saepissime utemur.” “vero,” inquit ille, “nihil potest esse iucundius.” Quae cum essent dicta, surreximus.