639. De Divinatione by Cicero- summary

639.  September 25.  De Divinatione by Cicero.

All people believe that signs exist which tell people the future.  Some philosophers rejected it but many took upon themselves to systematize it into their philosophical system.  Cicero's brother, Quintus, makes the case for divination.  He gives numerous examples and tries to support it by equating flight of birds previous to a storm, appearances of blossoms to indicate time to plant.  However, he soon leaves that and asserts that there are two major divisions to divination:  art and nature.  Art is that practiced by those who have treated interpretation of acts of nature into a science.  Hence augures and haruspices who watch for birds, lightening and examine the entrails of animals for signs.  Quintus asserts that just because predictions do not always come true does not mean that there is no such thing as divination.  Signs can be misinterpreted etc.  Quintus recalls famous dreams such as that of Alexander, Xenophon in the Anabasis and Marcus Cicero himself during his exile.  Philosophers, some, have explained the importance of proper diet and disposition in order to have a worthy dream.  Stoics use divination as one of their proofs of God and have developed elaborate arguments to back it up. 

Cicero begins his demolition of divinatio with this:  it is not applicable in any case where knowledge is gained through the senses. Duty, dialectic, physics are areas of philosophical study.  There is not a single field of study in which has divinatio even has an ancillary part. 

Quintus has defined divination as the foreshadowing and foretelling of things which happen by chance.  Quintus' reasoning indicates that divinatio of things which happen by chance is possible only of things which cannot be foreseen by means of skill or wisdom.  So the question is: can there be any foreknowledge of things for whose happening no reason exists?  On what law of nature do prophesies depend?  For nothing is so at variance with reason and stability as chance.  So, is there such a thing as chance?  Is it contradictory to say that Fate rules chance?  If all things happen by Fate, there is no such thing as divinatio.  If Fate rules us, divinatio does us no good for it is going to happen anyway.  If chance can be turned aside, Fate does not exist.

If it is impossible to foresee things that happen by chance because they are uncertain, there is no such thing as divinatio; if on the contrary they can be foreseen because they are preordained by Fate, still there is no divinatio.

As I read, it was interesting to watch Cicero's mind at work.  It is interesting to see how he viewed this process.  He says:

This introductory part of my discussion has been mere skirmishing with light infantry; now let me come to close quarters and see if I cannot drive in both wings of your argument.

He certainly takes thought seriously does he not?

There says Cicero is no uniformity of thought among soothsayers.  In fact Stoics have taken this so far that they have opened themselves up to attack from the Epicureans.  Lightening is random.  Weather is not the same at all places at once.  Even a view of the sky a short distance away may give an entirely different view of the sky and therefore interpretation.

Just as an aside.  Since Cicero spent so much of his life refuting the Epicureans, I always wondered, besides his interest in other ideas and a willingness to examine those, what he saw in Epicureanism which was worthwhile- now I can site one:

Epicureans made valuable contributions to the advancement of understanding of the world and life by pointing out the ridiculous in certain aspects of other systems of thought.  Not just this but other matters, too.

Cicero asserts that ignorance of cause (knowledge of Nature)  excites wonder.  He quotes Cato the Elder- I wonder that a soothsayer does not laugh when he sees another soothsayer.  Cicero seems even to suggest by juxtaposition of examples and argument that Pompy's devotion to divinatio perhaps proved his undoing during the Civil War.

Why would gods give warnings which require an interpreter? Besides why should they warn of things which cannot be avoided?  Cicero says that all portents have an explanation.

Another interesting tidbit about Cicero comes out.  He only had one dream he ever remembered- the one he had when he was exiled and dreamed of Marius. 

He had many calm nights of sleep.  Perhaps his philosophy helped with this.  I envy him. 

But Cicero even counters this with the info that he, Cicero, was thinking in his waking hours a great deal about Marius and how he endured his exile.  So it makes sense that he might dream about him. 

All previous arguments beg the question- why would God, the source of reason, use dreams to convey information to humans?  It is inefficient, misleading open to mistake and confusion.

Cicero, while refuting divinatio, makes an interesting observation about himself and the present:

mihi quidem praeter hoc Marianum nihil sane, quod meminerim.  Frustra igitur consumptae tot noctes tam longa in aetate!  Nunc quidem propter intermissionem forensis operae et lucubrationes detraxi et meridationes addidi, quibus uti antea non solebam, nec tam multum dormiens ullo somnio sum admonitus, tantis praesertem de rebus, nec mihi magis umquam videor, quam cum aut in foro magistratus aut in curia sanatum video, somniare.

For me in fact except for this marian dream there is not another I can remember.  Oh my so many nights in such as long life as mine- and all to no purpose!  Now though because of the interruption of forensic efforts and those nocturnal studies I have ended and naps at noon I have added which I was never accustomed to use before and with all that sleeping I have not been warned in any dream, especially concerning the present circumstances and truth to tell I do not even seem to be in a dream more than when I see a magistrate in the forum or the Senate in the senate house.

This tells us something else about Romans in their gardens.  Something I have written about elsewhere.  I refer to wide range of topics.

Cicero insists on seeing a cause of nature in a dream to give it validity.  For Cicero dream interpreters are using their wits and intellect to deceive.

Cicero at the end strongly asserts that:

nec vero…superstitione tollenda religio tollitur.

Religion is not destroyed by destroying superstition.

et esse praestantem aliquam aeternamque naturam, et eam suspiciendam admirandamque hominum generi pulchritudo mundi ordoque rerum caelestium cogit confiteri.

The beauty in the world and order of the sky above compels me to confess that a certain remarkable and eternal nature exists and the race of humans must undertake its study and admire it.

Cicero suggests that one of the worst mistakes ever made was when philosophers with their keen wit undertook the study of dreams.  Nothing more destructive to the pursuit of understanding of the world around us was ever added to the study of humans than that of dreams and such.  We owe Carneades a great debt for without him offering a challenge to all this we may be in much worse shape.

Then Cicero gives the reason for this work:

quam ob rem ut religio propaganda etiam est quae est iuncta cum cognitione naturae sic superstitionis stirpes omnes ejiciendae.

For this reason just as religion must be promoted, religion which has been joined with contemplation of nature, so every root of superstition must be ejected.

Fine words useful then and now.