DreamsandDivination fromByzantiumto Baghdad,400–1000
BRONWENNEIL
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©BronwenNeil2021
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2021
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2020942627
ISBN978–0–19–887114–9
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198871149.001.0001
PrintedandboundinGreatBritainby ClaysLtd,ElcografS.p.A.
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Acknowledgements
Thepublicationofanacademicbookisalwaysagroupeffort.Fortheirsage adviceondraftversionsofthework,IamtrulygratefultoChrisBishop (Canberra),TheodeBruyn(Ottawa),AlanCadwallader(Canberra),Doru Costache(Sydney),MarkEdwards(Oxford),PhoebeGarrett(Canberra), AydoganKarz(Melbourne),RaihanIsmail(Canberra),DavidRunia (Melbourne),NaokiKamimura(Tokyo),andSatoshiandKeikoTakahashi (Tokyo),amongothers.IoweagreatdebtofgratitudetoTomPerridgeat OxfordUniversityPress,theeditorsoftheseriesOxfordStudiesinthe AbrahamicReligions,andthetwoanonymousreviewers,whosesuggestions forimprovementweremostwelcome.
Thanksalsotoallwhoencouragedmefromafar,especiallyPaulBlowers (JohnsonCity),EvangelosChrysos(Thessaloniki),CarolHarrison(Oxford), ChrisdeWet(Pretoria),andAndrewLouth(Durham).IthankEirini Pachoumiforherinvitationtopresentapaperatherconferenceon PrayingandContemplating:ReligiousandPhilosophicalInteractionsin LateAntiquity atNorth-WestUniversity(Potchefstroom)inMarch2016. Iamgratefultomyformerandcurrenthigherdegreestudents,Ryan Strickler,KostaSimic,andCharlieThorne,andtoresearchassociate RachelYuen-Collingridge,whocollectedreferencesfromByzantinesources. ThankstoresearchassistantsCatherineRosbrookandPhoebeGarrettfor theircarefulproofingandindexing.Ihavetotakefullcreditforthe remainingerrors.
ThankstoRudyIrwan,IainEdgar,andRaihanIsmailfortheirlearned conversationsaboutIslamicdreaminginthecontemporarysphere,and specialthankstothemanypeopleofvariousreligiousandethnicbackgroundswhospontaneouslysharedtheirdreamswithme.Theirfascination withdreamstoriesconvincedmethatthesubjectwouldpasstheinfamous ‘pubtest’ andwasthereforeworthpursuing.
TheAustralianResearchCouncilgenerouslysupportedthisresearch throughaFutureFellowshipFT140100226(2014–18)on Dreams, Prophecy,andViolencefromEarlyChristianitytotheRiseofIslam. Throughoutthisproject,Ihavebenefitedfromaccesstovariousmarvellous libraries,includingtheBodleian,andthecollectionsoftheUniversityof
Ottawa,KatholiekeUniversiteitLeuven,MacquarieUniversity,Australian CatholicUniversity,theAustralianNationalUniversity,theBillBryson LibraryatDurhamUniversity,andtheNationalLibraryofAustralia.The OfficeofResearchandtheFacultyofArtsatMacquarieUniversity(Sydney) providedgenerous financialandmoralsupport.
ColleaguesintheDepartmentofAncientHistoryatMacquariehavebeen welcomingandtolerantofmyByzantinepursuits.Iamverygratefulforthe chancetocollaboratewithEvaAnagnostou-Laoutides,whoco-convenedthe AustralianAssociationforByzantineStudiesconferenceon Dreams,Memory andImaginationinByzantium atMonashUniversity(Melbourne)in February2017andco-editedtheproceedingspublishedintheBrillseries ByzantinaAustraliensiain2018.TheMacquarieUniversityCentrefor AncientCulturalHeritageandEnvironment(CACHE)offeredaninterdisciplinaryresearchenvironmentthatwasstimulatingandchallenging.Sotoo didtheInstituteforAdvancedStudiesatDurhamUniversity,whereIwas fortunatetoholdafellowshipduringEpiphanytermin2020.
ThankstoallmyformercolleaguesintheCentreforEarlyChristian Studies,whoweresuchanimportantpartofthepreviouschapterofmy academiclifeattheAustralianCatholicUniversity,wherethisprojectbegan. ToMaryNeil,ElizabethMcBride,andotherfamilyandfriends,especially MargieMoore,AlisonWishart,andSandraSewell,thankyouforyour continuedinterestintheprojectandgoodhumourthroughout.Mostof all,Iwanttothankmypartnerandourdaughterforputtingupwithmy beingabsent,especiallywhileworkingathome.Asmylategrandfather wouldsay, paxvobiscum.
Abbreviations
APApophthegmataPatrum
APanonApophthegmataPatrum(AnonymousCollection)
BTBabylonianTalmud
CCSLCorpusChristianorumSeriesLatina
CPGClavisPatrumGraecorum
CSELCorpusScriptorumEcclesiasticorumLatinorum
FOTCFathersoftheChurch
NIVNewInternationalVersionoftheBible
NRSVNewRevisedStandardVersionoftheBible
PGPatrologiaGraeca
PLPatrologiaLatina
PTPalestinianTalmud
Q.Qur’ an
SBLSocietyofBiblicalLiterature
SCSourceschrétiennes
SMSpiritualMeadow
TTHTranslatedTextsforHistorians
WhyDreamsMatteredinLateAntiquity
Untilrelativelyrecently,dreamswereunderstoodasbeingchargedwith meaningnotjustforindividualsbutforthecommunitiestowhichthey belonged. ‘Thetruedreamisacommunicationfromtheheavenlyrealm concerningtheunseen, ’ asal-Tirmidhiputit,writinginUzbekistantoward theendoftheninthcentury.¹Farfrombeingtheprivatephenomenonthat theyaregenerallyconsideredinthecontemporaryera,dreamsandvisions werepublicpropertyintheChristianEastandWest,andtheJewish diaspora.ThesameholdsfortheIslamictradition,fromitsverybeginnings intheearlyseventhcenturyevenuntilthecurrentday.LouiseMarlow,in herintroductionto DreamingAcrossBoundaries, describestheeighthtothe eighteenthcenturiesinIslamiclandsasaperiodinwhichdreamswereof criticalculturalimportance, ‘notonlyastheprivateexperiencesofthe individualdreamerbutalsoaspubliceventsofsignificanceforthelarger communityinwhichthedreamerparticipated’.²Islamicdreamsnotonly reflectedculturebutalsoshapedit.³Thesamecanbesaidabouttheearly Byzantineandrabbinictraditions.
Dreamaccountscouldserveawidevarietyofliterarypurposes,which weresometimescontradictory.Theycouldbuildthereaderuporpullhimor herdown;theycouldventureintoforbiddenterritoryorpullthereaderback tosafedoctrinalormoralground;theycouldofferacritiqueofsocialnorms andpoliticalregimesorreinforcethestatusquo;theycouldgiveglimpses intothefuture(oftenonlyrecognizedaftertheevent)orwarnagainstthings yettohappen.ItistheJanusnatureofdreamsthattheyusuallytoldtoo muchortoolittletobeuseful.AsRabbiHisdaputitintheBabylonian Talmud: ‘Neitheragooddreamorabaddreamiseverwhollyfulfilled.’⁴
IargueinthisbookthatthecommonrootsofChristian,Jewish,and Islamicapproachestopropheticdreamsfrom400to1000 werea consequence,ontheonehand,oftheirsharedrelianceonclassical Graeco-Romandreaminterpretationand,ontheother,oftheirshared
¹Al-Tirmidhi, Sira 90.2,trans.RadtkeandO’Kane2013:236.²Marlow2008b:1. ³Marlow2008b:8. ⁴ b.Ber 55b,trans.Fishbane2007:197.
DreamsandDivinationfromByzantiumtoBaghdad,400–1000 CE.BronwenNeil,OxfordUniversityPress(2021). ©BronwenNeil.DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198871149.003.0001
NearEasternorigins,mediatedbytheJewishtradition.Together,thesethree culturesshapedwhatwenowcalltheearlyMiddleAges,aspectsofwhichare stillwithustoday,especiallytheacceptanceofcertaindreamsashaving spiritualsignificance.Inthisintroductorychapter,Ioutlinethespiritual importofdreams,theideaofspiritualgenderinthethreetraditions,and pastmethodologicalapproachestodreamsandgender,withareviewof recentstudiesrelevanttothethemesofthisbook.Iclosewithsome limitationsofthescopeofthisstudyandasummaryofeachchapter.
TheSpiritualImportofDreams
Acommonheritageofdreamtheoryhasbeennotedinthetractsof HellenisticphilosophersofthelaterRomanEmpireandearlyChristian writings,andthereisconsiderableoverlapbetweenthetwo,especiallyin Neoplatonicphilosophy.⁵ ThedebtoflateantiqueChristiandreamtheoryto apocryphalJewishliterature,suchasthesecondbookofMaccabees,isalso welldocumented.⁶ Inthisbook,IextendtheanalysistotheTalmudic commentariesofLateAntiquity,aswellasearlyIslamicandearly Byzantineliterature,withaspecialfocusonfemaledreamersandthe appearancesoffemale figuresindreams.Speci ficquestionsaddressedto thesesourcesincludethefollowing:howdidreporteddreamsenhanceor detractfromthespiritualstatusandauthorityofbothmenandwomen?Did dreamingallowwomentoactaschannelsfordivineprophecyand/or retributioninuniqueways?And, finally,aretheredifferencesacrossthe threereligioustraditionsoneitherofthesepoints?
ThisstudytakesasitspointofdepartureW.V.Harris’sstudyofthe dreamsintheclassicalGraeco-Romanworld,whichsuggestedthatepiphanicdreamswereakindofdegradeddreamexperienceandweremostly metwithscepticism.⁷ Harrispointedtothesuperiorreadingofdreamsas naturalphenomenainGraeco-Romanmedicaltexts,wheredreamswere explainedbyphysiologicalcauses,anareaofstudywhichhasbeenexpanded uponinrecentscholarship.⁸ HarrischaracterizesthefatherofancientGreek dreamkeymanuals,thesecond-centurydreaminterpreterArtemidorusof
⁵ Neil,Costache,andWagner2019:122–42. ⁶ Koet2009a:25–26.
⁷ Harris2009.
⁸ e.g.Dossey2013;theessaysinOberhelman2013a,especiallyOberhelman2013b,and, beforeHarris,Holowchak2002andRocca2003.
Daldis,asgullible,andthereforeanunreliablewitnesstothedreamaccounts herecorded.⁹ Harrissuggeststhatepiphaniesormessagedreams those thatpurportedtoconveyatruemessagefromadivinesource onlytook holdinthesecondcentury amongsuperstitiousandcredulous Christians.Harris’sreferencetothe ‘credulous’ traditionthatreplaced naturalGreekscepticism¹⁰ reflectsascepticalreadingoftheplaceofmantic dreamingintheclassicalworld.Bycontrast,Iarguethattherecognitionof suchdreamsorepiphaniesasirrationaldoesnotmakethemdevoidofsocial meaning.Rather,thetraditionofdreaminterpretationwasoneinwhich menandwomenofallreligiousbackgroundsparticipatedinthelater RomanEmpire,andit flourisheduntilwellbeyondtheeleventhcentury, wherethisstudyends.
SpiritualGenderintheAncientWorld
HistoricalgenderstudiesofByzantineandIslamicsourceshavelagged behindscholarshipongenderinthemedievalWest,withfewgender historiansventuringtotreatthetwohalvesoftheRomanEmpiretogether. Exceptionalinthisrespectaretwovolumesofcollectedessaysfrom1999 and2004,whichdealtwithgenderrelationsinthewesternandeastern RomanEmpires.¹¹Mostoftheseessays,however,coveredgenderrelations spanningtheRomanEmpireunderChristianrule;veryfewventuredinto Islamicterritories,andnonedealtwithdreams.Muchofthepreviouswork inthisareainbothByzantineandmedievalstudieshasfocusedonelites: imperialandroyalwomen,aswellasfemalesaints,especiallythemost elevatedholywomanofall,MarythemotherofJesus,whoseculthasbeen showntostartsurprisinglylateinByzantium.¹²Generally,onlytheelite classesregisterinourJewishandIslamicsourcesaswell.
MyworkingdefinitionofgendercomesfromLizJames,agenderhistorianoftheByzantineworld,whowrites: ‘Asatoolforresearch,genderrefers tothedifferencesbetweenmenandwomenintermsofthedifferences
⁹ Harris2009:114.SeethereviewsofHarrisson2009andWalde2011.
¹⁰ Harris2009:152.
¹¹Lebecq,Dierkens,LeJan,andSansterre1999;BrubakerandSmith2004.SeealsoBiteland Lifshitz2008;ConstantinouandMeyer2019;andthebriefintroductiontoByzantinegenderby Neville2019.
¹²TheDumbartonOaks BibliographyonWomeninByzantium,nowthe Bibliographyon GenderinByzantium 2014,isanimportantbibliographicresource.OntheearlyByzantinecult oftheVirgin,seeespeciallyBrubakerandCunningham2011;Peltomaa,Külzer,andAllen2015.
createdbysocietiesratherthanthebiologicaldifferencesofsex.’¹³ Contemporarythinkingonthequestionofsexandgenderseesbiological sexasagiven,albeitonethatcanbesurgicallychanged,whilegenderslides onaspectrumthatdoesnotcorrelatewithbiologicalsex.Jamesnotesthat sucha fluidconceptofgenderinvitesustoseemasculinityandfemininityas constructionsofsociety,ratherthanbiologicalnecessities.¹⁴
Theancientauthorsofthetextsunderdiscussionherewouldhaveagreed thatgenderandsexneednotcorrelate,butforthem,itwasamatterof sublimatingsexualityaltogethertoattain ‘perfect ’ malegender.Forthem, genderwasagiven;sexwasmutable.¹⁵ Whereasbodiescouldchange becausetheybelongedtothetransientrealmof ‘becoming’,genderasthe socialmeaningattributedtothebodywaseternal,accordingtoearly Christianthinkers.Tochangeone’sgenderstatusrequiredatransformation ofthebody,usuallyachievedthroughasceticpractices.Monasticandclerical celibatesweresometimesdescribedasangelsoreunuchsintheByzantine EastandthemedievalWest.¹⁶ Thesedescriptionsrefertotheiraspirations ratherthantheirphysicalstatus.The SayingsoftheDesertFathers praised femaleasceticsforhavingmalespiritualqualities,asweshallseein Chapter5.The firstfemaleSufi,Rabi‘aal-‘Adawiyya(717–801),whois discussedinChapter6,wascelebratedforbeinglikeamaninhersinglemindedquestforAllahtheBeloved,andherrefusaltomarry.Thesexual indeterminacyofholymenandwomenpresentsafacetofgenderrelations commontoByzantiumandIslam.
Somefemaleasceticsresortedtotransvestism.¹⁷ Celebratedexamples includeMaryofEgypt;¹⁸ Athanasia/Athanasius,wifeofthemonk Andronikos,whomistookherforamanaftertwelveyearsofasceticpractice intheThebaïd;¹⁹ Eugenia/Eugenius,wholivedindisguiseasamonkinan Alexandrianmonasteryandwasfalselyaccusedofseducingwomenbut refusedtogiveuphertrueidentity;²⁰ Mary/Marinus,whowasalsowrongly accusedofrapingawoman;²¹andPelagia/Pelagius.²²Somemenresortedto self-castrationforthekingdomofheaven,aswasallegedofOrigenof Alexandria,followingtheinjunctionofMatthew19:12tobe ‘eunuchsfor thekingdomofheaven ’.AccordingtoEusebiusofAlexandria,theyoung
¹³James1997:xvii;Neil2013b:3.¹⁴ James1997:xvii.¹⁵ Casey2013a:170–71.
¹⁶ Murray2008:34–51.¹⁷ Torjesen1996:79–91.
¹⁸ LifeofStMaryofEgypt, Talbot1996:65–94.
¹⁹ AndronicusetAthanasia,N.596.10, ApophthegmataPatrum 2015:444–55.
²⁰ Talbot1996:3,20n.29.²¹ LifeofStMary/Marinos, Talbot1996:9–12.
²² LifeofPelagia,Ward1987:57–84.
Origentookthisradicalsteptofreehimselftoworkwithfemalecatechumensandremainabovereproach.²³Othersfoundthemselvesspiritually castratedthroughangelicinterventionsinvisions,asweshallseein Chapter5.
Owingtotheirhavingescapedthetraditionalbondsofgender,maleand femaleasceticscametohaveauniquespiritualvalency.Theywereableto transcendthelimitsofgenderinthewayadvocatedbyMaximusthe Confessor,whospokeofChristashealingthe fivedivisionsthatplagued humanbeings,oneofwhichwasthedivisionbetweenmaleandfemale.²⁴ Iproposethatdreamswerevaluedespeciallybywomenasameansofaccess tothedivine,thuscircumventingthelimitationsoftheirgenderinasimilar waytotheeunuchs.Inthisway,theywereabletoserveaspropheticadvisers toroyalty,justaseunuchscouldserveasadvisersintheimperialservice, bothinByzantinecourtsfromtheeighthtotwelfthcenturies²⁵ andinsome pre-modernIslamicsocietiesfromtheninthcentury,suchastheMamluk courtinCairo.²⁶ Womenwhohadbecomespiritualeunuchsthrough celibacyandrigorousasceticismweregrantedsimilarlyuniqueopportunitiesforspiritualguardianshipinthe fifthtotenthcenturies.
Theabilityofwomentoaccessthisdreamtraditionthroughsolitary asceticismseemstohavebeenaparticularfeatureofeasternChristianity. Roman,Gallic,andnorthAfricanChristiantheoristsofgenderrelations writinginLatin,weremoreinfluencedbytheStoictradition,whichwas materialistinitstreatmentoftherelationshipbetweensoulandbody.Thisis thetraditiontowhichTertullianbelonged,andwhichalsoinfluenced AugustineofHippototheextentthathebelievedthatsinwaspassed downatthemomentofconceptionbytheveryfactofbecomingembodied inthelonglineofsinfulwomenfromEve.² ⁷
Theemploymentofagenderedapproachtothesesourceswillhelpusto uncoverthedisputedhegemonyofpropheticauthority,especiallywhen claimedbywomen.MariaMavroudinotesthattheroleofgenderinstudies ondreamshasreceivedmuchmoreattentionfortheIslamicMiddleAges thanfortheByzantineperiod,bearingasitdoesonthecontemporaryissue
²³ EcclesiasticalHistory 6.8.1–3,Oulton1932:28.ThestoryoriginallycamefromDemetrius ofAlexandria,nofriendofOrigen,soitshouldbetreatedwithsuspicion.
²⁴ Costache2013:262–71.²⁵ Ringrose2003:33–34.
²⁶ Eunuchsactedasprotectorsofthewomenofthe harim,andasguardiansofthetombsof theProphetandothersinMedina:Marmon1995:5–6.
²⁷ Harrison2003:293–314.
ofwomen’sstatusinIslamicsocieties.²⁸ HerewemightinvokeAntonio Gramsci’stheoryofculturalhegemony,whichiscommonlymisunderstood asthemanipulationofthevaluesystemsofsocietysothattheirview becomesthe Weltanschauung.²⁹ Gramsci’sconceptionof(cultural)hegemonyisthatitis ‘hegemoniconlyifthoseaffectedbyitalsoconsenttoand struggleoveritscommonsense’.³⁰ Consenttosubjugationhastobenegotiatedandthisnegotiationprocessentailsstruggle.
OldTestamentscholarRolandBoerhasemployedtheGramscianconcept ofhegemonyasasiteofideologicalstruggleratherthananassumed dominantandimmovablepowerinthesocialandpoliticalhierarchy.³¹
ThemainbenefitofadoptingBoer’smodi fieddefinitionofculturalhegemonyinourcontextisthatitallowsustoseewomen’srolesindream interpretationasactive,andnotasasoptoencouragepassivefemale acquiescencetodecisionsinthepublicspheremadepredominantlyby men.Iproposetoexplorethechallengetoacceptednormsofmalehegemonyposedbywomendreamersandprophets.Ratherthanbeinginstitutionallyassignedsucharole,somewomensimplyseizedit,thusignoring traditionalmalehegemonyinthissphere.
Thisimportantspiritualroleseemstohavecrossedreligiousandcultural boundariesaswellaschronologicalonesinthecourseofthe600yearsunder studyhere.Whilevisionarywomenweresometimesdismissedasfantasists, onotheroccasionstheirpropheticdreamswereheardandtheirspiritualor practicaladvicewasfollowed.Ratherthanwritingwomenoutofthestory ofdivineinterventioninhumaneventscompletely,ourauthors predominantlymale acknowledgedsomewomenasactiveparticipantsin themediationofdivinerevelationthroughdreams.
MethodsofApproachtoDreamsandGender
Genderstudiesusuallyhaveanagendaofsocialreformandpointto disparitiesofpowerreflectedbothingendereddreamingandinthe
²⁸ Mavroudi2014:163n.9.See,e.g.,Sirriyeh2015:118–39.
²⁹ Eagleton1991:112commentsonGramsci’suseoftheterm ‘hegemony’ tomean ‘theways inwhichagoverningpowerwinsconsenttoitsrulefromthoseitsubjugates thoughitistrue thatheoccasionallyusesthetermtocoverbothconsentandcoerciontogether.’
³⁰ Laurie2015:19.
³¹Boer2013:217–18questionsthemasculinityofEzekielandothermalemediatorsofdivine messagesinthepropheticbooks.
interpretativestrategiesappliedtothem.Dreamaccountsareparticularly relevanttothestudyofgenderinanysocietysincetheyrepresentthedesires ofordinarymenandwomen,andtheirsocialaspirationsandanxieties.³² Theearliestsurvivingexampleofthegenreofdreamkeymanuals,the Oneirocriticon ofArtemidorusofEphesus,asecond-centurywriterfrom Daldis(AsiaMinor)wholatersettledinEphesus.Hisdreambookwas frequentlycopied,withmodifications,byGreekandArabChristiansand Muslimsinthe firstmillennium .³³
Artemidorus firstcametotheattentionoftwentieth-centurydream theoristsviaSigmundFreud’ s TheInterpretationofDreams.³⁴ Freudmisappropriatedthismaterialforhispsychoanalyticagenda,whichrestedon thecompletelydifferentculturalassumptionsofbourgeoisViennesesociety. Thepsychoanalytictradition,whichregardsdreamsastheproductof unconsciousforces,reliesonapost-Enlightenmentviewoftherelationship betweenthemindandthebodywhichwasutterlyforeigntoourpremodern sources.AsLutherMartinputit: ‘Thelate-antiquesystemofoneiromantic knowledgewasunderstoodasculturallyconstructedsignsoftheexternal worldtobediscerned,whereasmodernpsychoanalytictheoryispredicated uponthepresumptionofauniversalbutsubjectiverealitytobe discovered.’³⁵
Themodernpsychoanalytictraditionisthereforeoflimiteduseforthe studyofancientMediterraneanworksondreams,althoughsomeattempts havebeenmadeeveninthepastdecade.³⁶ Asearlyasthe1950s,Michel FoucaultcriticizedthenarrownessoftheFreudianapproachtodreamsas expressionsofrepresseddesires ³⁷ Thatbeingsaid,thereismuchcommon groundbetweenFreud’stheoryofdreamsasamediumfortheexpressionof unconsciousdesires(especiallythedreamsofwomen,orthosethatfeatured women)andtherabbinicteachingsonevildreamsintheTalmud.Freudhas alsobeencreditedwiththeideathat ‘dreamsmaybetheproductof figurativethought.
’³⁸ WewillseeinChapter3thatArtemidoruspre-empted
³²MacAlister1992:140.
³³SeeMacAlister1992andArtemidorus2012:1–41onthepurposeofArtemidorus’ Oneirocriticon.IreturntoArtemidorusandhisoffshootsinByzantiumandtheArabworld inChapter3below.
³⁴ Freud1912,translatedasFreud1913.³⁵ Martin1994:374.
³⁶ e.g.Galatariotou2014,astudyofMichaelPsellos’ FuneralOrationforHisMother
³⁷ Foucault1984:16–41.SeeWalde1999:136–42foradetailedcomparisonofArtemidorus’ moredemocraticapproachtodreamsandFreud’s,whichwasreductiveandgeneralizedfrom middle-andupper-classViennesetohumankind.
³⁸ Domhoff2003:143.
Freudinthisrespectbysome1,600years,andthatearlyChristiansand Muslimsadoptedthesameview.
TheenormousimpactofFoucauldiananalysiswasaprequeltonew postmodernistdevelopmentsinthestudyofdreams.FollowingFoucault’ s lead,JohnWinklerappliedthemethodsoffeministanthropology,combined withclosetextualanalysis,touncoverthepublicmeaningsofsexualdreams insecond-centuryGreekculture,astheyarerepresentedinArtemidorus’ Oneirocriticon.³⁹ Thirtyyearson,itiscommonplacetoassertthatmaleand femaledreamers’ dreamcontentsasportrayedinByzantinedreamkey manuals,andtheirascribedmeanings,alsorevealpowerrelations,and especiallypowerrelationsbetweenthesexes,intheearlymedievalGreek world.
ItisnowalsocommonlyarguedthattheFreudianschoolofpsychoanalysishasundulyshapedwesternapproachestodreamsandtheirsignificance overthepastcentury.Thiscritiquehasbeenledbysocialpsychologists,such asG.WilliamDomhoff,whobroughtneurocognitivedevelopmentintothe equationofdreamanalysis. ⁴⁰ ThishasledtoacritiqueofFreud’stheorythat thedreamingsubjecttendedtoresistthetherapist’sanalysisofhisorher dreams.AsDomhoffobserved: ‘WhatFreudsawasovercoming “resistance” canbeunderstoodfromthevantagepointofsocialpsychologyasaprocess ofpersuasionandconversion.’⁴¹Inotherwords,thepersoninvestedwith thesocialpowertointerpretdreams,thepowertopersuadeandconvert, garneredconsiderableauthority,religiousorotherwise.
Thesecondmajorschoolofpsychoanalyticalresponsestodreamingin thetwentiethcenturywasthatofFreud’sone-timestudent,CarlGustav Jung.UnlikeFreud,whoseperspectivelookedtotheindividual’spastforthe meaningsofhisorherdreams,Jung’sworklookedtothefutureandtreated dreamsasaninnermapofthedreamer’sprocessofindividuation.This psychicevolutionrequiredamorebalancedrelationshipbetweentheego andtheunconscious,whetherpersonalorcollective,whichcouldbetracked throughthearchetypalorbigdream.KellyBulkeleydefinedtheJungianbig dreamas ‘anexperiencethatbeganinthephysicalstateofsleepand ordinarydreamingbutthensoaredawayintothetranscendentrealmof revelation,inspiration,anddivinepresence.’⁴²Suchdreamsareaproductof thedreamer’ssocial,cultural,andreligiouscontexts,andthesecontextswill
³⁹ Winkler1990:23–44. ⁴⁰ Domhoff1996and2003. ⁴¹Domhoff2003:143. ⁴²Jung1974;Bulkeley2002:12.
betakenintoaccountinthisstudy,withspecialattentiontothegendered natureofdreams.
Onlyafewrecentdreamscholarshavecombinedsocial-psychological insightswithJungianpsychoanalyticalandanthropologicalapproachesand afocusongender.AnexampleisthesocialpsychologistCaroleSchreier Rupprecht,whoin1996undertookacontentanalysisofAmericanmen’ s andwomen’sdreams.Rupprechtmaintains: ‘[A]slongastheimaginal unconsciousanditsnightlycreationsareneglectedorignoredincollective aswellasindividualfunctioninginUSsociety,deeperunderstandingofour sharedhumancondition,anessentialcomponentoflastingsocialchange, willeludeus.’⁴³Thisobservationisparticularlytrueinrespectofwhat culturalanthropologistGayleRubinidentifiedin1975asthesex/gender system.Rubindefinedthissystemas ‘asetofarrangementsbywhicha societytransformsbiologicalsexualityintoproductsofhumanactivity’
Eachsocietyconfiguresmaleandfemalerolesslightlydifferently,andthe differencesbetweenlateantiqueJewish,Christian,andearlyIslamiccommunitiesneedtobetakenintoaccounthere.
Someofthemostinnovativestudiesondreamshavebeencomparative, suchasBarbaraTedlock’scross-cultural,cross-disciplinarystudyofgender ambiguityindreams,drawingitsmaterialsfromawiderangeofancientand modernsocieties,fromtheancientGreekstotheindigenouspeoplesof SouthDakota.⁴⁵ DavidShulmanandGuyStroumsaadoptedadiachronic cross-culturalapproachin DreamCultures:ExplorationsintheComparative HistoryofDreaming,withastudybyStroumsaonpatristicsourcesfrom LateAntiquity.⁴⁶ SuchanapproachwasalsousedbyKellyBulkeleyin DreamingintheWorld’sReligions:AComparativeHistory. ⁴⁷ Thesuccess ofthecomparativeapproachledBulkeleytoeditasecondvolumeon DreaminginChristianityandIslam:Culture,ConversionandCreativity.⁴⁸ Thatvolumeofcollectedessays,likeBulkeley’sotherworkonIslamic dreams,⁴⁹ aimstouncoversimilaritiesbetweencontemporarywesternand Islamicdreamcultures,especiallyasacauseofreligiousconversion.⁵⁰ Their eirenicpurposemaybecontrastedwithsocialanthropologistsIainEdgar andGwynneddeLooijer’swork,whichaimstoequipthewesternworld
⁴³Rupprecht1996:109. ⁴⁴ Rubin1975:179. ⁴⁵ Tedlock2014.
⁴⁶ ShulmanandStroumsa1999;Stroumsa1999. ⁴⁷ Bulkeley2008.
⁴⁸ Bulkeley,Adams,andDavis2009.
⁴⁹ e.g.Bulkeley2002,writteninresponsetotheeventsof11September2001.
⁵⁰ BulkeleyandRambo2009.
bettertofacethethreatsofradicalIslamicJihadismbyunderstandingthe centralrolethatdreamsplayinthatculture. ⁵¹
Bycombiningelementsofthreemainapproaches thesocialpsychological,anthropological,andliterary-critical andapplyingthemto thecorpusofpropheticdreamsinspiredbyreligiousbeliefsfrom400to 1000 ,IemploywhatLamoreauxhascalledanecumenicdiscourseof dreaminterpretation.⁵²Anecumenicapproachtreatsdreamsasmediumsof divineinspirationandprophecy,anideologythatwassharedbyeasternand westernadherentsoftraditionalGraeco-Romanreligion(towhomIreferin thisbookas ‘ pagans ’,withoutwishingtoinvoketheproblematicoverlayof Christianimperialismthatthetermcancarryinothercontexts)andmonotheistsinthe firstmillennium .Suchanapproachfocusesonthecommon groundbetweenthethreemonotheismsinrespecttodreamworkanddream theory,whilenotignoringkeydifferencesthatconstitutebarrierstomutual understandingbetweenthosereligions,andthesectswithinthem.Itisa pluralistapproach,treatingallscriptureasanelevatedkindoftextthatis widelybelievedtohavebeenhandeddownbydivinerevelationtohuman agents.
DefiningDream-VisionsandDivination
Thedifferencebetweendream-visionsanddivinationisnotaseasytodefine asonewouldlike.ScholarssuchasGregorWeber,W.V.Harris,andJuliette Harrissonhavenotedcontinuityratherthanchangeintheperiodfromthe lateRepublictotheearlyRomanEmpire,despitethemarkedincreasein sourcematerialrelatingtodreams. ⁵³Divinersofthefuturewererespectedin earlyGreekandRomanliterature,butinlaterRomanliterature,dream interpretersappearlessoftenandareportrayedinanuncomplimentary way.⁵⁴ (JulietteHarrissonhighlightedtheimportanceofgenre,distinguishingbetweenportrayalsofdreamsandtheirinterpretationinGraeco-Roman historicalandimaginativeliterature,thelatterincludingnovels,plays,and
⁵¹Edgar2016;EdgarandDeLooijer2017.
⁵²Lamoreaux2002:171–74.Seefurtherthesection ‘IslamicDreambooks’ inChapter3 below.
⁵³Weber2000:274;Harris2009;Harrisson2013:146.Seetheregularlyupdateddatabaseof secondarysourcesonGraeco-Romandreams, DreamsofAntiquity2.0,curatedbyWeber2020. ⁵⁴ Harrisson2013:147.Thisappliedtobothprofessionalandnon-professionalinterpreters, e.g.OdysseusinHomer’ s Iliad 1.68–72;5.149–50and Od. 19.535.
epicpoems,⁵⁵ adistinctionwhichisnotasclear-cutinlateantique Christianity).However,interpretingone’sdreamswithoutprofessional helpoftenhadmixedresults,sodreamdivinerswerenecessary,ifnotalways respected.
Propheticandpagandreamdivinationcouldbothbeeffective,regardless oftheoriginofthedream,whetherdivine,natural,ordemonic.While divinelyinspireddreamsweremorelikelytoprovideaccurateinsightsinto thedreamer’spresentorfuture,dreamsfrom ‘false’ sourcescouldalsoprove truepredictions,withtheDevilsometimesusingthemtoleadpeopleastray throughhiddenknowledgetheyoughtnottohave.ThetroublewithGraecoRomanpagandreamdivination,forChristiancommentatorsatleast,was thatitsometimesworked.Thus,weneedtobecarefulofconsidering prophecybydreamsasameresubcategoryofthebroadercategoryof divination,orjustanotherwayofknowingthefuture.Rather,pagan dreamdivination,whichrequiredtechnicalaidssuchascauldrons,the studyoftheentrailsofbirdsoravian flightpatterns,andothermethodsto beconsideredinChapter4,canbetreatedasasubsetofpropheticdream interpretation.TouficFahdtreatsoneiromancyasaspeciesofthebroader categoryofdivination.DivinationwithoutanintermediaryissimplyprophecyinFahd’sview.⁵⁶ HeregardedthenomadicancientHebrewsandthepreIslamicArabtribesoftheHijazinthesixthandseventhcenturies as sharingasimilarconceptionofthesacredandthedivineintheircultof intermediariesbetweenhumansandtheDivinity.⁵⁷ Theboundariesbetween goodandbadmagicanddivinationwereporousandcausedmuchconsternationtoIslamicjurists. ⁵⁸ AsEdgarFrancisnotes, ‘PerhapsFahd’sbest observationregardingtheIslamicpositiononmagic[anddivination]was thatthesourcematerialisconfusedandcontradictory.’⁵⁹
ApartfromChapter3ondreambooks,thefocusofthisvolumeison dreamsthatwereidentifiedaspropheticorrevelatory,whichIcall ‘dreamvisions’.Thisnarrowsthe fieldofdiscussionquiteconsiderably,althoughit seemsfromthenarrativeevidencethatdreamswhichwereinterpretedas revelationsconstitutethemajorityofreporteddreamsinoursources.⁶⁰ Soit isreasonabletoaskattheoutset,justwhatwererealdreamsorvisionsinthe
⁵⁵ Harrisson2013:148. ⁵⁶ Fahd1966:63. ⁵⁷ Fahd1966:12,147–48.
⁵⁸ OntheporousboundariesbetweengoodandbadmagicanddivinationintheearlyIslamic period,seealsothearticlesinSavage-Smith2004andFrancis2011:624–25.
⁵⁹ Francis2011:625.
⁶⁰ ThecaliphUmar firstusedthedesignation in638,whichhedesignated17 (‘inthe yearofthehijira’),theyearofMuhammad’ s flight(hijra)fromhishomeinMeccatoMedina.
ancientworld,andhoworwhendidtheydifferfromthebroadercategory, divination?Thedistinctionbetweentermsfor ‘dream’ and ‘vision’ isnotas clearasonewouldlikeinancientHebrew(chalom/marah or mahazeh), Latin(somnium/visio),ByzantineGreek(enhypnion/onar or oneiros )or earlyArabic(manam/ru ’ ya).Thesemantic fieldofthe firstterm,dream, wasoftenextendedtocoverwhatwewouldlabelinEnglishavision.⁶¹Most westernpatristicwriters,includingJerome,Ambrose,andGregorythe Great,usedtheterms visio ‘vision’ and somnium ‘dream’ interchangeably,⁶² whileNeoplatonistsmademoreprecisedistinctionsbetweenthetwo.The paganphilosopherMacrobius(399–422)andtheChristianconvertSynesius ofCyreneweretwooutstandingthinkersofthisschool.⁶³Macrobius’
CommentariiinSomniumScipionis isbasedonCicero’saccountof Scipio’sdreamin DeRepublica. ⁶⁴ Macrobiusdistinguishedbetweenthe oraculum (oraculardream,arevelationfromtheotherworlddeliveredby anauthoritative figure,evenagodordivinemessenger)andthe visio,a higherdreamlikethe oraculum butcontainingamoremundaneprediction ofeventsineverydaylife.AfurtherMacrobiandistinctionbetweendreams atthelowerlevelofthespectrumofmeaningfulnesswasthe somnium or ordinarydream,whichhadtobedeciphered,andthelower insomnium (nightmare)or visum (apparition),whichwastheresultoftheimagination ofspectralforms.
FollowingMacrobius,theRomanoratorandlaterbishopAugustineof Hippoidentifiedthreekindsofvision,eachofwhichequatestoaspecific wayofunderstandingScripture:
onethroughtheeyes,whichseethelettersthemselves;anotherthroughthe humanimagination,bywhichaneighbourisseen,althoughabsent;the thirdthroughthemind’sgaze,bywhichloveitselfiscontemplated,having beenunderstood.⁶⁵
Thesethreewaysofseeingalsoapplytodreams,inascendingorderof spiritualvalue:theordinary ‘seeing’ ofimagesthatoccurindreams(per
⁶¹FurthermethodologicalconsiderationsforthestudyofancientdreamsandtheirinterpretationhavebeencanvassedinNeil2016:44–64.
⁶²Stroumsa1999:189–90insistsontheimpossibilityofdistinguishingbetweendreamsand visionsinearlyChristiandiscourses.
⁶³OnSynesius’ dreamtheory,seeChapter4.
⁶⁴ SeeKruger1992:19–23,70;Näf2004:169–70.
⁶⁵ Gen.adlitt.12.6.15,Augustine1894:396.9–12.SeeConsolino1989;Wittmer-Butsch1990: 99–103;Kruger1992:36–43;Näf2004:162–64.
oculos ),theseeingoftheimagination(spiritushominis),⁶⁶ andthecontemplationofdivinerealities(spiritalisvisio).HereIamconcernedwithonlythe twoupperlevels:thedivinerealitiesglimpsedindream-visions,andtheless elevatedsymbolicdreamsthattakesome figuringout.Bothcouldhavea divineordemonicsource.TheproblemforlateantiqueChristiansand otherswastosortoutonefromtheother,andthentodiscernitsorigins, andtodiscardthethirdtype,whichhadphysicalcauses,suchasanexcessof foodorlackofit,orthirst,oralcohol,oranythingelsethatledtoan imbalanceofthemind.Thesewereeitherordinarydreamsortheso-called ecstasies,whichAugustinenotescouldbecausednaturallythroughillnessor concentratingtoohard.⁶⁷ Then,ifadreamwasofthesecondtype,symbolic, theyhadto findoutwhatitmeant,whichmightleadthemtoengagethe professionalservicesofadreaminterpreter.Readingdreamswasavery complexmatterindeed,andaseriousone,sinceithadimplicationsforthe dreamer’ssalvationandeternalwell-being.
Insum,thedefinitionofdream-visionsandtheirrelationtodivinatory practicesmustbeapproachedwithcautionandsensitivitytothegeneric constraintsofthetextsinwhichtheyappear.Inthisstudy,dream-visions areanyrepresentationappearingtothemind whileasleeporawake that isdivinelyordemonicallyinspired.Thisdistinguishesthemfromvisionsor fantasiesthatareproducedpurelybytheimagination,acategoryofmental imagerythatwasfullyfamiliartothoseoftheancientworld.Whethertheir dreamswereinspiredbydivineordemonicforces,recipientsofdreamvisionsusuallyself-identifiedthemasrevelatory.
Ancientwritersrecognizedthatdreamscouldbeinducedbyvarious causes:bythesympatheticresonancesbetweenthematerialworldandthe cosmicsoul;byphysicalexcessordeprivation;bypreoccupationsofthe wakingmind;orbydivineordemonicrevelation.Inmydiscussionofthe spirituallegitimacyofdreamsandvisions,Iamconcernedwithboth messagedreams thoserequiringmoralreflectionordiscernmentoftheir trueoriginsandmeaningsinhagiography,historiography,treatises,and scripturalcommentaries andsymbolicdreams.Thefunctionsofmessage dreamsandsymbolicdreamsinspiritualliteraturearedistinctlydifferentin
⁶⁶ IhavefollowedMiller2009inusingtheterm ‘imagination’ topreservethesenseofa mentalimage.AugustineofHippo1982,vol.2:301n.13,translates spiritus as ‘spirit’ butnotes itsspecialusein Gen.ad.Litt. todesignateitsleastspiritualmeaning,forwhatarealsocalledthe innersenses,memory,andimagination.
⁶⁷ Augustine, Gen.adlitt. 12.12,Zycha1894:395.21–396.7.
purposeandapplicationfromtheone-to-onecorrespondencesbetween dreamsymbolandmeaningindreambooks(seeChapter3).
TheliterarygenrealsodictatedwhatourearlyByzantine,Jewish,and Islamicsourcesrelayedaboutdreamsandtheirinterpretation.Jesse Keskiahohasshownhowpastoralconcernscameintoplayinthiscontext inlatesixth-toeighth-centuryGallicandAnglo-Latinhagiographyand histories.⁶⁸ Limitinghisfocusto ‘learnedculture’,Keskiahoissurelyrightto identifyAugustine⁶⁹ andGregorytheGreatasthemostinfluentialinterpretersofthepatristictraditionondreamingandthecentralauthoritieson dreamsintheearlyMiddleAges.However,whenweextendourfocus beyondlearnedtractsonthenatureandfunctionofdreams,scriptural commentaries,andhistoriestothemorepopularformsofexpressionof divinationbydreams,we findastrikingvarietyofopinionsastothespiritual valueofdreams,especiallythedreamsofwomen.
AncientandModernDreamTaxonomies
Severalscholarshaveattemptedtotaxonomizethedisparatematerial coveredbydreamsinvariousgenresofancientsources.Thefundamental distinctionbetweenmessagedreamsandsymbolicdreamswas firstbrought toscholarlyattentionbyLeoOppenheim,whoidentifiedthethreeconstant elementsinancientNearEasternrevelatorydreamsasrecipient,message, andresponse.⁷⁰ Messagedreamscontainedaclearmessagethatcame unequivocallyfromagodordivine figureandwhichusuallythedreamer feltcompelledtoactupon.Symbolicdreamswerehardertounderstand, containingaseriesofimagespredictinganunavoidablefate;theydidnot allowthedreamertochallengehisorherfate.Whilemessagedreamswere usuallypersonal,symbolicdreams ‘provideanimpersonaldivinesignor omenofaneventthatisfatedtotakeplace,whereasmessagedreamsoften offerthedreamerachancetocommunicatewithagod,divinespiritordead person ’ ⁷¹
JulietteHarrissonidentifiedthisdistinctionalsoinoperationinGraecoRomanhistoricalandimaginativeliteratureofthe firstcentury to
⁶⁸ Keskiaho2005and2015.
⁶⁹ OntheCarolingianreceptionofAugustine’sdreamtheory,seeKeskiaho2015:137–216; Dulaey1973.
⁷⁰ Oppenheim1956. ⁷¹Harrisson2013:94.
