Dreams and Experience in Classical Antiquity (review)

Reviewed by: Dreams and Experience in Classical Antiquity Pauline Ripat William V. Harris. Dreams and Experience in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England: Harvard University Press, 2009. Pp. xv + 332. US $49.95. ISBN 978-0-674-03297-2. William Harris undertakes the daunting task of investigating the phenomenon of dreaming in antiquity—its forms, the claims made about it, its interpretations, its explanations, its credibility as a form of divination. Ancient dreaming is a subject for which “truth” is either generally unattainable or irrelevant (dreams are unlikely to be wholly “true,” and can be significant without being predictive), an activity for which the most candid sources are still poor witnesses (who can recall a whole dream, much less in any detail?), and a topic whose study is complicated by the weight of the propagandic value of a proclaimed (not necessarily experienced) significant dream. Yet Harris perseveres in his investigations with vigor, armed with a seemingly inexhaustible array of ancient evidence and modern scholarship on contemporary dreaming. His aims are threefold: to investigate the differences between ancient and modern dreaming by consideration of the “epiphany” dream; to demonstrate that the ancient population was much more uncertain about the predictive powers of dreams than is usually credited in modern scholarship; and to consider ancient philosophic thought about the nature of dreaming not as a forerunner (and thus failed version) of modern dream scholarship, but in its own context and on its own terms. The book consists of an introduction and four chapters. The introduction includes a substantial summary of the modern debate regarding the function and nature of dreaming. Harris notes (13) that we still do not know why we dream, and thus that ancient thinkers ought not to be judged harshly for failing to achieve what has yet to be accomplished. Chapter 1 (“From Epiphany to Episode: A Revolution in the Description of Dreams”) investigates the relative prevalence of the “epiphany” dream in antiquity and the reasons for its disappearance in modern western society. This kind of dream features the appearance of an authoritative figure (a god, a hero, a dead friend or relative) who imparts some kind of message to the dreamer. This is to be contrasted with [End Page 199] episodic dreaming (experienced in antiquity too, and the kind we are now most familiar with), or “sequences of events” (23). The “epiphany” began as the prerogative of royalty, but over time, and beginning with Socrates, came to be claimed by the less politically important too. But Harris observes its waning in the fourteenth through eighteenth centuries, to result in its complete extinction in the modern west today. Its disappearance is explained by weakened conviction that the divine are in contact with “charismatic individual humans” (86), a growing interest in rationalization, and increasing avoidance of the “epiphany” as a literary device. Chapter 2 (“Greek and Roman Dreams That Were Really Dreamed”), the most daring element of the book, seeks to determine what criteria can be applied to reports of dreams from antiquity to determine if they were fictions or were really dreamt. After addressing head-on expected objections, Harris identifies six reasons (105–106) for impugning or accepting authenticity, and then applies his criteria to a selection of famous dream reports. Chapter 3 (“Greek and Roman Opinions about the Truthfulness of Dreams”) surveys ancient responses to dreams from Homer to late antiquity. As befits a decrier of blanket generalizations about ancient belief, Harris proceeds chronologically, considering in turn opinions in different eras, and, where possible, considering the responses of different social segments separately. This is by necessity a very long chapter (123–228). Its results are interesting: Harris tracks oscillating sentiments through to about ad 100, but then notes an unwavering surge towards conviction in the significance of dreams on the part of elite and non-elite alike. He suggests as a possible reason a slackening grasp on classical philosophy (228). The final chapter (“Naturalistic Explanations”) seeks to assess the achievement of those whose ideas were forgotten in later antiquity, in particular those who pursued explanations for dreams that did not depend upon the gods. The ideas of various natural philosophers and proponents of medical theories are discussed...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.