Oneiropolos
edition published: 2021
language: en
availability: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)

Description

ὀνειροπόλος, adj. “occupied with dreams, dream-interpreting”; “of a dream, occurring in a dream”; subst. m. “prophetic dreamer, dream-diviner(?)”; “interpreter of dreams”; “(day)dreamer(?)”

Etymology

Composed of ὄνειρος “dream” and the ending -πόλος. Ὄνειρος seems to derive from the same root as the uninflected ὄναρ IE *h3en-r “dream”, by the addition of the suffix *-io-, which gave rise to *h3n-er-jo-. (Beekes 2010: 1082, s.v. ὄναρ.) The latter part is formed from the same root as πολέω “to go about, to wander around, to take care of, etc.”, from IE *kwlh1- “to go around” (Beekes 2010: 1168–1169, s.v. πέλομαι). The ending -πολος occurs in titles of pastoral, agricultural, and religious figures from the time of the earliest texts (Chantraine 1974: 877, s.v. πέλομαι); in this context, its meaning is something like “attendant of, one who deals with, one who takes care of”. Cf. αἰπόλος, βουκόλος, ἀμφίπολος (see Kajava 2023), θυηπόλος, ἱεραπόλος, etc. The terms ὀνειροκρίτης, ὀνειρόμαντις, and ὀνειροσκόπος are, at least partly, synonymous or near-synonymous with ὀνειροπόλος (as may be [ὀνε]ι̣ροφόντης = [ὀνε]ι̣ροφάντης? at IG X, 2, 1, 1117: see Martín González – Hallof 2020: 237). Derivatives include ὀνειροπολία, ὀνειροπολικός, ὀνειροπόλημα, and ὀνειροπόλησις.

The related verb ὀνειροπολέω means “to dream (about)”, rather than “to interpret dreams” (Casevitz 1982: 69; Vinagre 1996: 259; e.g. Ar. Nub. 16; Diod. Sic. 17.30.7; Plut. De E apud Delphos 393D; Plut. De fac. 942a; absol.: Plut. De genio Socratis 590B; [Lucian], Philopatris 26); also in a metaphorical sense (sometimes with a negative connotation), “to fantasize, to dream of” (Dem. Philippica 1.49; Plut. Alc. 17.3; Plut. Cic. 14.1; Lucian, Gall. 32), “to dream up, to create a false notion of” (Greg. Nyss. Contra Eunomium 3.3.25), or “to have a wrong conception of” (Clement, Paed. 2.10.106; see Yli-Karjanmaa 2021); and, apparently, rarely “to divine from” (Oracula Sibyllina 1.95). In the medium, “to dream up, to conjure a dream for oneself” (Aesopica, Proverb 52; Chrysippus, Fragmenta logica et physica, Fr. 65); in the passive, “to be haunted by dreams” (Diod. Sic. 17.30.7; Diod. Sic. 29.25.1). Its full range of meanings has not been researched exhaustively.

Testimonies

HOMER AND HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP

The word has been attested since the Iliad, in which ὀνειροπόλοι are distinguished from μάντεις (“seers”) and ἱερεῖς (“priests”). After the plague has erupted in the Achaean camp, Achilles suggests consulting various religious specialists in order to identify its cause:

Hom. Il. 1.62–67: ἀλλ’ ἄγε δή τινα μάντιν ἐρείομεν ἢ ἱερῆα ἢ καὶ ὀνειροπόλον, καὶ γάρ τ’ ὄναρ ἐκ Διός ἐστιν, ὅς κ’ εἴποι ὅ τι τόσσον ἐχώσατο Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων, εἴ ταρ ὅ γ’ εὐχωλῆς ἐπιμέμφεται ἠδ’ ἑκατόμβης, αἴ κέν πως ἀρνῶν κνίσης αἰγῶν τε τελείων βούλεται ἀντιάσας ἡμῖν ἀπὸ λοιγὸν ἀμῦναι.

“But let us seek some seer or a priest or even an ὀνειροπόλος – for a dream too is from Zeus – who might say what made Phoebus Apollo so vastly infuriated, whether he has grievances about a vow or a hecatomb; so that maybe he will accept the savour of lambs and full-grown goats and be willing to ward off ruin from us.”

Mentioned by name is the ὀνειροπόλος γέρων Eurydamas, whose sons Abas and Polyidus participated in the Trojan War as warriors:

Hom. Il. 5.148–151: τοὺς μὲν ἔασ’, ὃ δ’ Ἄβαντα μετῴχετο καὶ Πολύειδον υἱέας Εὐρυδάμαντος ὀνειροπόλοιο γέροντος· τοῖς οὐκ ἐρχομένοις ὁ γέρων ἐκρίνατ’ ὀνείρους, ἀλλά σφεας κρατερὸς Διομήδης ἐξενάριξε·

“Leaving them behind, he went after Abas and Polyidus, sons of Eurydamas, the aged ὀνειροπόλος; the old man did not interpret dreams for them (v. on their behalf) when they went on their way, but mighty Diomedes killed them.”

The first passage suggests that ὀνειροπόλοι, like seers and priests, had access to divine knowledge concerning the gods’ attitudes towards humans and the ways to appease them: as with other omens, “dreams too” were of divine origin. The inclusion of dream-interpreters among the religious specialists would appear strange, however, since there has been no mention of a dream that requires interpretation. The second passage raises even more questions, which have been analysed by A.H.M. Kessels (1973: 18–24). Kessels argued convincingly that οὐκ should be associated with ἐκρίνατ’ and that ἐρχομένοις refers to “coming” (or “going”) to Troy rather than “returning” from there or “going” up to the old man to consult him, although the last interpretation is linguistically possible (1973: 19; cf. Kirk 1990: 73–74; Brillante 2009: 697–698). Furthermore, Kessels suggested that κρίνομαι should not be translated as “to interpret”, but rather as “to separate, to pick out” the significant, prophetic dreams that predicted the future from the non-prophetic instances (1973: 20–23) (see ὀνειροκριτής). This brings us to the meaning of ὀνειροπόλος in the Iliad.

Exactly what the occupation of Homeric ὀνειροπόλοι included has been debated since the Imperial era or earlier, when the idea was raised that they would have divined from their own dreams rather than interpreted other people’s dreams (although verse 1.63 had already been athetized by Zenodotus in the early 3rd c. BC: Brillante 2009: 695). The hypothesis that the original ὀνειροπόλοι were some kind of prophetic dreamers dates back, at least, to the Augustan-age grammarian Aristonicus, who is quoted by a scholiast commenting on Il. 5.148–149, and the somewhat later sophist Apollonius (1st. c. AD):

Aristonicus, De signis Iliadis, in Il. 5.148–149: (…) ὀνειροπόλος ὁ διὰ τῶν ἰδίων ὀνείρων μαντευόμενος, οὐχ ὁ ὀνειροκριτής.

“(…) the ὀνειροπόλος is he who divines from his own dreams, not the ὀνειροκριτής.”

Apollonius, Lexicon Homericum, p. 121 (Bekker): ὀνειροπόλος ὁ περὶ τοὺς ἰδίους ὀνείρους πολούμενος.

“Ὀνειροπόλος is he who concerns himself with his own dreams.”

Aristonicus distinguishes the ὀνειροπόλος from the ὀνειροκριτής, which was the more common word for “dream-interpreter” during his time, and who interpreted the dreams of his clients rather than serving his community by divining from his own dreams.

The theory that the original meaning of ὀνειροπόλος was not “dream-interpreter” has found support in more recent scholarship; Kessels (1973: 18–24) maintained that, in the Iliad, ὀνειροπόλος meant “Traumseher”, not “Traumdeuter” (1973: 18). His main arguments were: 1) the etymology of ὀνειροπόλος does not imply interpretation of dreams but rather that the ὀνειροπόλος “attended to dreams”; 2) the verbal form ὀνειροπολέω means “to dream” rather than “to interpret dreams”; and 3) if ὀνειροπόλος always meant an “interpreter of dreams” it would have been unnecessary to create a new word with a synonymous meaning, ὀνειροκριτής, especially when the -πόλος ending remained in use in Greek. Kessels further hypothesized that the task of the ὀνειροπόλος developed over time “from merely attending to dreams to the actual interpretation of dreams, which eventually became his sole activity”, which would have explained why the term ὀνειροπόλος was almost replaced by ὀνειροκριτής (Kessels 1973: 22).

Kessel’s arguments were rejected by Miguel Vinagre (1996), who pointed out that the etymological meaning of ὀνειροπόλος (“one who deals with dreams”) could refer to either a prophetic “dreamer” or an “interpreter of dreams”. He further noted that verbal derivatives in -πολέω generally mean “to deal with x”, and argued that the verb ὀνειροπολέω, attested since the 5th century BC, originally meant “to deal with dreams”, but was soon limited to the sense “to dream” because there was already a verb for “interpreting” dreams: κρίνω. The verb, according to Vingare, subsequently gave rise to the ancient idea that ὀνειροπόλος originally meant a “dreamer” (Vinagre 1996: 258–261).

Kessel’s theory was nevertheless taken up by Carlo Brillante (2009), who has suggested that, in its most ancient sense, the word ὀνειροπόλος referred to people who interpreted their own dreams for the benefit of their communities. Brillante suggests that the ὀνειροπόλοι would have been individuals who were recognized by their communities as suitable for receiving reliable divine messages in their dreams concerning public matters; they would have sought answers to specific questions, and the dreaming would have occurred in an institutional setting, perhaps within a sanctuary. (Brillante 2009: 698–701). In support of the theory, Brillante evokes possible parallels in a Hittite (king Mursili II’s prayer) and Laconian context (the Spartan ephors, apparently, would sleep in a temple of Pasiphaë in order to receive dream oracles: Cic. Div. 1.96; cf. Plut. Agis 9; Plut. Cleom. 7; probably the incubation sanctuary mentioned in Paus. 3.26.1; he also observes that the Selloi (Hom. Il. 16.233–235), priests of Zeus at Dodona, may have practiced incubation) (2009: 700–703).

The evidence on which this attractive analysis is built is unfortunately meagre. Incubation was a common practice in Greece and, especially during crises, political leaders as well as priests would often receive divine instruction concerning public and military matters through dreams in later times as well (e.g. Hdt. 6.118; Xen. An. 4.3; Diod. Sic. 16.66; Plut. Ages. 6; Plut. Arist. 11; Plut. Luc. 12; Plut. Pel. 20–22; Plut. Tim. 8; Plut. Am. narr. 774 C–D; Paus. 2.32.6; Paus. 4.26.3; Paus. 4.26.6–4.27.3; Paus. 7.5.1–3; Paus. 10.32.4–5; see Vesterinen 2022 for more examples in military contexts; cf. Artem. 1.2: the dreams of rulers, generals, archontes, priests and seers that concern the state have predictive significance, similar dreams of private individuals usually do not). The word ὀνειροπόλος is nowhere associated with this practice, as far as we know. Furthermore, if the ὀνειροπόλοι indeed were originally a class of religious specialists whose main function was divining from their own dreams, the two Iliadic passages would appear to be the only attestations that have come down to us in which the word is used in that sense, which should make us cautious.

To add a further point, albeit of limited evidential value, Joannes Malalas (ca. 495–ca. 575 AD) records how the mythical ὀνειροπόλοι Cleitophon of Ithaca and Polyphemus of Argos were summoned by Odysseus to interpret a dream of his (ὅπως διακρίνωσι τὰ ὀνείρατα) shortly before his death (Chronographia 5.21, ll. 23–75 = Dictys, BNJ 49 F 10). The story may originate in the Telegony, the final poem of the Epic Cycle, which described Odysseus’ life after his return to Ithaca and was probably composed in the 6th century BC. Since the Telegony is lost and Malalas is considerably later, this passage does not serve as strong evidence for the early presence of dream-interpreters in Greece or the use of the word ὀνειροπόλος in the poem in that sense, but it at least suggests the possibility that the epic tradition was familiar with dream-interpreters when the Trojan cycle was being formed.

There is yet another possible interpretation of the ὀνειροπόλος at Il. 5.149: that it is not used as a substantive but as an adjective. Thus we could translate ὀνειροπόλοιο γέροντος as “the old man who would divine from dreams” (rather than “the aged dream-diviner”). This would enable us to hypothesize that the word did not always necessarily refer to a special class of religious specialists, but could also refer to a specific type of divinatory skill that some people were endowed with. We encounter ὀνειροπόλος used both as an (apparently) adjectival attribute of some Persian Magi as well as a substantive in its earliest attestations after the Iliad, so it could have had both uses already in the epic.

On the other hand, at Il. 1.63, the adjectival interpretation is unlikely, unless we are willing to accept the implausible claim made by some ancient commentators that the ἱερεῖς and ὀνειροπόλοι on ll. 62–63 were both subtypes (or specified groups) of μάντεις. Commenting on Il. 1.62, Aristonicus argues for such a classification (Cf. Aristonicus, De signis Odysseae, in Od. 7.197):

Aristonicus, De signis Iliadis, in Il. 1.62: (…) μάντις γενικῶς, ἱερεὺς δὲ καὶ ὀνειροπόλος εἰδικῶς, εἴδη μάντεων.

“(…) μάντις is a generic term, whereas ἱερεύς and ὀνειροπόλος are specialized types of μάντεις.”

The same is argued by the 2nd-century AD grammarian Herodian, who comments on the same passage:

Hdn. Περὶ Ἰλιακῆς προσῳδίας, GG III, II 1, p. 22 (Lentz): μέχρι τοῦ ἐρείομεν διασταλτέον, εἶτα ἢ ἱερῆα ἢ καὶ ὀνειροπόλον, ἵνα γενικὸν μὲν ᾖ τὸ μάντιν, εἴδη δὲ τὰ ἐπιφερόμενα. οὕτως Ἡρωδιανός. A.

“Concerning what has been said (by Homer), one must distinguish, whether a ἱερεύς or an ὀνειροπόλος (is to be summoned), since μάντις is a generic term, the others are subtypes. Thus Herodian.”

Galen (AD 129–ca. 216) is also aware of the interpretation, but argues that the three words refer to separate professions:

Gal. In Hippocratis de victu acutorum commentaria, Kühn vol. 15, p. 442: ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ὀνειροπόλους ὑπὸ τοῦ ποιητοῦ κληθέντας ἐν τοῖς μάντεσι καταλέγουσιν. ἀλλ’ ὅ γε Ἱπποκράτης δῆλος ὅτι τοὺς οἰωνιστὰς μόνους ὀνομάζει μάντεις ὡσαύτως τῷ ποιητῇ· καὶ γὰρ κἀκεῖνος (…) ἱερέα μὲν λέγων τὸν ἱεροσκόπον, ὀνειροπόλον δὲ τὸν περὶ τοὺς ὀνείρους ἔχοντα, μάντιν δὲ τὸν οἰωνιστὴν δηλονότι· (…)

“Some also count those whom the poet (i.e., Homer) calls ὀνειροπόλοι among the μάντεις. But Hippocrates obviously attaches the practice of augury exclusively to μάντεις just like the poet does; for he, as well, (…) quite clearly calls the interpreter of sacrificial victims a ἱερεύς, the one concerned with dreams an ὀνειροπόλος, and the interpreter of bird omens a μάντις.”

Finally, the Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry (ca. 234–ca. 305 AD) appears to have held similar views as Hippocrates, in that he considered μάντις, ἱερεύς, and ὀνειροπόλος to be separate occupations. Unlike Aristonicus and Apollonius, he seems to have maintained that the Homeric ὀνειροπόλοι interpreted dreams experienced by others rather than divining for others from their own dreams. He comments on Il. 24.221 (ἢ οἳ μάντιές εἰσι θυοσκόοι ἢ ἱερῆες):

Porph. Quaest. Hom. ad Il. 24.221: (…) ἠγνόησάν τινες καὶ τὸν θυοσκόον, ἀποδιδόντες τὸν αὐτὸν μάντιν. δοκεῖ δ’ ἐμοὶ ἱερέα αὐτὸν ἀποδιδόναι, ἀπὸ τοῦ καίειν τὰ θύη. (…) ὅταν οὖν εἴπῃ ἢ οἳ μάντιές εἰσι θυοσκόοι ἢ ἱερῆες, οὐ δεῖ συνάπτειν τῷ θυοσκόοι, ἢ ἱερῆες, ἀλλὰ θυοσκόοι ἢ ἱερῆες, ἵν’ ᾖ ἐπίθετον τῶν ἱερέων τὸ θυοσκόοι, τὰ τεθυμένα καίοντες· ὁ γὰρ διαζευκτικὸς ἄλλους καὶ ἄλλους δηλοῖ, ὡς τὸ ἀλλ’ ἄγε δή τινα μάντιν ἐρείομεν ἢ ἱερῆα ἢ καὶ ὀνειροπόλον. περὶ τριῶν γὰρ ἔφη· περὶ μάντεως, ὃς ἐκ σημείων ἢ τεράτων ἢ οἰωνῶν ἢ ἔκ τινων συμβόλων ἢ ἀποβάντων λέγει καὶ μαντεύεται, (...) ὁ δὲ ἱερεὺς ἀρᾶται καὶ εὔχεται τῷ θεῷ, (…). ὁ δ’ ὀνειροπόλος ἔμπειρός ἐστιν ἀποκρίνασθαι ὀνείρατα, ὥσπερ Πηνελόπη τὸν Ὀδυσσέα καὶ τοὺς χῆνας ὁραθέντας ἐπερωτᾷ ἐνύπνια διελέσθαι καὶ σαφηνίσαι. καί τινα Εὐρυδάμαντα ὀνειροπόλον γέροντά φησι μὴ κρίνασθαι τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ παισὶν ὀνείρους, ὁπότε ἤρχοντο ἐπὶ τὸν πόλεμον, οὐ μὰ Δία θεασάμενος αὐτός· οὐδὲ μὴν ἐκείνους ἰδεῖν ἔφη, ἐξ ὧν καὶ ἔμελλεν ὁ πατὴρ κρίνειν αὐτοῖς τὸ μέλλον.

“Some misunderstand ‘sacrificing’ (thyoskoon) (Il. 24.221), explaining it as seer, but it seems to me that he explains it as a priest, from burning the sacrificial offerings. (…) So when he says ‘or you who are sacrificing seers or priests’ (Il. 24.221), one must not join ‘or the priests’ with sacrificing, but rather ‘or sacrificing priests,’ so that sacrificing is an epithet of the priests who burn the flesh of the victim. For the disjunctive conjunction indicates different kinds, like ‘but come let us ask some seer, a priest, or a dream interpreter’ (Il. 1.62). For he spoke about three [types]: about a seer, who speaks from signs, either portents or omens, or from certain symbols or events, and prophesies, (…) but the priest prays and vows to the god whose priesthood he holds, (…). But the dream interpreter is experienced in replying to dreams just as Penelope asks Odysseus to interpret and elucidate the geese seen in her sleep (Od. 19.535–53). And he says that a certain Eurydamas, an old dream interpreter, did not reply to the dreams of his sons when they were lead to the war, not, by Zeus, having seen [(dreams)] himself, [but doubtless he meant that the sons had not seen (dreams),] from which the father was going to judge the future for them (…) (Il. 5.150).” (Transl. MacPhail 2011: 269–271, with additions in square brackets)

Porphyry’s interpretation is not entirely convincing, but he is probably right that Il. 1.62–63 refers to three different kinds of religious specialists. The inclusion of ἱερεῖς under μάντεις must be a late conjecture, and it is probably safest to assume that the same applies to ὀνειροπόλοι. We could, on the other hand, attempt to interpret ὀνειροπόλος as an attribute and translate 1.62–63: “a seer or a priest, even a dream-divining one”, but this interpretation of ἢ καί is probably not viable. Naturally, this reading would not solve what kind of dream-divination is meant.

CLASSICAL ERA

From the classical age, we have only four attestations of ὀνειροπόλος, all from Herodotus, who applies the word to specialists who interpreted other people’s dreams. Herodotus distinguishes “the dream-interpreting Magi” (τῶν μάγων οἱ ὀνειροπόλοι) consulted by Astyages from other types of Magi (1.107; 1.108; 1.128), which suggests specification in their trade by ca. 600, at least, in Herodotus’ view:

Hdt. 1.107.1: ὑπερθέμενος δὲ τῶν μάγων τοῖσι ὀνειροπόλοισι τὸ ἐνύπνιον, ἐφοβήθη παρ’ αὐτῶν αὐτὰ ἕκαστα μαθών.

“After he (i.e., Astyages) had reported the dream to those of the Magi who interpreted dreams and learned from them everything (that was going to happen), he became terrified.”

In a Greek context, the tyrant Hipparchus of Athens consulted ὀνειροπόλοι shortly before his death in 513 BC:

Hdt. 5.56.2: ταῦτα δέ, ὡς ἡμέρη ἐγένετο τάχιστα, φανερὸς ἦν ὑπερτιθέμενος ὀνειροπόλοισι· μετὰ δὲ ἀπειπάμενος τὴν ὄψιν ἔπεμπε τὴν πομπήν, ἐν τῇ δὴ τελευτᾷ.

“When morning came, he was witnessed communicating this (dream) to interpreters of dreams. After that, he put the vision out of his mind and led the procession in which he perished.”

The account points to the presence of professional dream-interpreters in Athens at the end of the 6th century, although we cannot rule out the possibility that these were in fact seers who also practiced other kinds of divination. Much later sources indicate that by the Classical era professional interpreters worked in Athens and elsewhere, but they are attributed the title of ὀνειροκρίτης rather than ὀνειροπόλος. From the Hellenistic era, we have exclusively mentions of ὀνειροκρίται but not ὀνειροπόλοι, probably because the latter word fell out of use (cf. Casevitz 1982: 69).

IMPERIAL ERA

After Herodotus, the word ὀνειροπόλος does not resurface until the early Imperial era. In his treatise On Dreams, Philo Judaeus (ca. 15 BC–ca. AD 50) applies it to Joseph when discussing his dream (cf. Gen. 37:5–7):

Philo, De somniis 2.42: αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ ἐνυπνιαστὴς καὶ ὀνειροπόλος – ἦν γὰρ ἀμφότερα – (…)

“The dreamer and ὀνειροπόλος himself – for he was both – (…).”

Apparently, Philo is pointing out that while Joseph himself experienced prophetic dreams, he also practiced the interpretation of dreams, whether his own or of others (cf. De somniis 2.78: ὅ γε τῶν ἐνυπνίων μύστης ὁμοῦ καὶ μυσταγωγός; see Vinagre 1996: 261). Alternatively, ὀνειροπόλος could here be simply another word for “dreamer”, a sense that appears to be attested in later Christian literature (see below), perhaps with the added sense of “prophetic dreamer, one who divines from his own dreams” (cf. above, on Homer), or even bearing a negative connotation, as the verb ὀνειροπολέω sometimes does in Philo (De Somniis 2.105–106; 2.162). At Ios. 12, Joseph’s brothers call him ὀνειροπλῆγα καὶ ἐνυπνιαστήν, “a dream-smitten dreamer”, clearly with a negative connotation (cf. Gen. 37:19). However, the sentence seems to stress the opposition between ἐνυπνιαστής and ὀνειροπόλος (Vinagre 1996: 261), which is best explained as that of “dreamer” and “dream-interpreter”.

According to Philostratus of Athens (2nd to 3rd c. AD), ὀνειροπόλος was a term used of interpreters of (dream-)visions (οἱ ἐξηγηταὶ τῶν ὄψεων, V A 2.37) by the poets:

Philostr. V A 2.37: οἱ γοῦν ἐξηγηταὶ τῶν ὄψεων, οὓς ὀνειροπόλους οἱ ποιηταὶ καλοῦσιν, οὐκ ἂν ὑποκρίνοιντο ὄψιν οὐδεμίαν μὴ πρότερον ἐρόμενοι τὸν καιρόν, ἐν ᾧ εἶδεν.

“The interpreters of (dream-)visions, whom the poets call ὀνειροπόλοι, will not try to interpret a vision without first inquiring about the time in which it was seen.”

Philostratus notes that the ἐξηγηταί refrained from interpreting anything unless they were informed of the time of dreaming (cf. Artem. 1.7), which indicates that he had in mind specialists who interpreted other people’s dreams rather than their own. It may be true that the term ὀνειροπόλος never became popular in everyday parlance and, by the Imperial era, was associated mainly with epic.

Yet, as we have seen, the word occasionally appears in prose. In the earliest version (recensio α) of the largely fictional Alexander Romance attached to an author known as Pseudo-Callisthenes and probably written the 3rd century AD (Nawotka 2017: 4–5), Philip II experiences a peculiar dream while travelling and summons an ὀνειροπόλος to explain its meaning:

Historia Alexandri Magni, Recensio α 1.8: Ταῦτα ἰδὼν ἀνίσταται καὶ μεταπεμψάμενος ὀνειροπόλον διηγεῖται τὸν χρησμόν.

“Having seen this (dream), he rose up, sent for a dream-interpreter, and told him the oracle.”

The somewhat later recensio β, roughly dated to the 5th century AD (Nawotka 2017: 31), adds that the ὀνειροπόλος was Babylonian and describes him as “distinguished” (ἐπίσημος):

Historia Alexandri Magni, Recensio β 1.8: καὶ θεωρήσας τὸν ἱέρακα Φίλιππος λαλοῦντα αὐτῷ, διυπνισθεὶς ἐν πολλῇ ταραχῇ εὐθέως ἀποστείλας ἤγαγεν ὀνειροπόλον τινὰ Βαβυλώνιον ἐπίσημον ὄντα καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· (…)

“And having beheld a falcon that spoke to him (in his dream), Philip woke up greatly troubled and directly sent someone to find a dream-interpreter, who happened to be a notable Babylonian, and told him (his dream): (…)”

The addition of the ethnic attribute might be an indicator that traditional forms of divination were conceived of as increasingly foreign and typical of Near Eastern rather than Greek religious practice by the late Imperial era. Later in the narrative, during his siege of Tyre, Alexander summons an ὀνειροπόλος to interpret his dream (α 1.35; β 1.35). According to Plutarch, Alexander’s dream was interpreted by μάντεις (Alex. 24.5), and Artemidorus says that the interpreter was the famous Aristander of Telmessus (Artem. 4.24), who accompanied Alexander on his expedition and whom he calls an ὀνειροκρίτης (Artem. 1.31; Artem. 4.23). The word ὀνειροκρίτης appears once in the recensio α of the Historia (1.4), when the Egyptian Nectanebo (who could also fashion dreams for other people: 1.5–8) lists specialists of different types of divination, boasting that he has studied each of them; recensio β substitutes ὀνειροπόλοι. It appears that ὀνειροπόλος and ὀνειροκρίτης in the Historia are more or less synonymous.

In the Orphic Argonautica, which probably dates from the early 5th century AD, the word ὀνειροπόλος is used as an adjective with a novel meaning:

Orph. Arg. 33–36: Ἀμφὶ δὲ μαντείης ἐδάης πολυπείρονας οἴμους θηρῶν οἰωνῶν τε καὶ ἣ σπλάγχνων θέσις ἐστίν· ἠδ’ ὅσα θεσπίζουσιν ὀνειροπόλοισιν ἀταρποῖς ψυχαὶ ἐφημερίων, ὕπνῳ βεβολημέναι ἦτορ·

“And you learned (v. taught) the manifold paths of divination, from the motion of wild birds as well as the appearance of entrails, or whatever the souls of short-lived humans prophecy on dreamy walks, when the heart is struck by sleep.”

Orph. Arg. 601–604: Καὶ τότε δὴ βασιλῆες ὀνειροπόλον διὰ πύστιν, κνημὸν ἐπὶ ζάθεον καὶ Δίνδυμον ἀκρώρειαν, ὄφρα κε μειλίξαιντ’ εὐοινίστοις ἐπὶ λοιβαῖς Ῥείην πρεσβυγενῆ, θυμὸν δ’ ἀλέαιντο ἀνάσσης.

“And then the lords, because of tidings received in a dream, (went to) the sacred spur of the mountain and the ridge of Mount Dindymon in order to propitiate the ancient Rhea with libations of excellent wine and to avert the anger of the goddess.”

In these passages, the word ὀνειροπόλος is used in the sense “belonging to a dream, occurring in a dream” in contexts that discuss prophetic dreams: the choice of word must owe to its ancient connotations of divinatory dreaming.

In Egypt, astrologers seem to have continued the use of the word until late Antiquity. The didactic poem Apotelesmatica, whose author is called Pseudo-Manetho (born AD 80), lists ὀνειροπόλοι among the religious professionals produced by Mercury in the domiciles of Saturn (Κρόνου ἐν μεγάροισιν, 2.202):

Pseudo-Manetho, Apotelesmatica 2.204–209: τεύχει δ’ οὐ μοῦνον βίβλων ἐπιίστορας ἱρῶν, παννυχίδων τελετῶν θ’ ἡγήτορας, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐσθλοὺς μάντιας, ἀστρονόμους καὶ ὀνειροπόλους, προπάροιθεν ἑζομένους θυσιῶν, μακάρων ἄπο θέσφατα θνητοῖς φαίνοντας, πτηνῶν τε ποτῆς ἄπο θεσπίζοντας, πρήξεσι δ’ ἐν βιότου ἑτέροις ὑποπεπτηῶτας.

“It produces not only connoisseurs of sacred books and leaders of nightly rituals, but also expert seers, astrologers, and dream-interpreters, who preside over sacrifices, reveal to mortals oracles from the blessed gods and prophesy from the flight of birds, and who shy away from other matters in life (?).”

Whereas the 6th-century astrologer Rhetorius asserts the following:

Rhetorius, Capitula selecta (ex Rhetorii Thesauris) (e cod. Paris. gr. 2425, fol. 88v), p. 165 (Cumont): Ἐν τῷ θʹ Κρόνος ἡμέρας μύστας ποιεῖ, ἀρχιμάγους, φιλοσόφους, τὸ μέλλον προλέγοντας, τινὰς δὲ καὶ ἐν ἱερατικαῖς ἀσχολίαις ἢ ἱερῶν προεστῶτας ποιεῖ· νυκτὸς δὲ ἐγκατόχους, ἀποφθεγγομένους, ὀνειροπόλους, φιλοσόφους, ἐνίους δὲ καὶ κόμας τρέφοντας.

“In the 9th (house), Saturn by day produces initiates of secret cults, chief Magi, philosophers, those who tell the future, also some in priestly occupations or overseers of sacred rites; and, by night, recluses (in sanctuaries), chanters of hymns (v. oracle-mongers?), interpreters of dreams, philosophers, as well as some who let their hair grow out (i.e., ascetics?).”

At other times, astrological sources speak of ὀνειροκρίται, but the meaning is probably synonymous to ὀνειροπόλος. Saturn and Mercury, in particular, seem to be often associated with practicers of dream-interpretation.

CHRISTIAN AUTHORS

A few Christian authors of the late Imperial era use the word ὀνειροπόλος, mostly in a pejorative sense. Its meaning does not seem to be limited to “dream-interpreter”, but it may have also been used in the sense of “dreamer”, although it is difficult to establish that with certainty. Gregory of Nyssa (AD ca. 330–390) writes:

Greg. Nyss. Contra Eunomium 3.5.16: οὐσίαν δὲ τοῦ μονογενοῦς τὸ πνεῦμα νοεῖν τοῖς ὀνειροπόλοις ἀφήσομεν, μᾶλλον δὲ κατὰ περιουσίαν πολλὴν καὶ τοῖς ἐκείνων χρησόμεθα καὶ διὰ τῶν ἐναντίων βελῶν καθοπλίσομεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.

“We shall leave it to the peddlers of dreams to think of the Spirit as the being of the Only-begotten, and in view of its great abundance, we shall rather use their own material, and arm the truth with the enemies’ weapons.” (Transl. Hall 2010: 140)

In this passage, ὀνειροπόλος might have the metaphorical sense of “(day)dreamer”, which would bring it semantically close to the verb ὀνειροπολέω (cf. 3.3.25). However, an earlier passage suggests a different interpretation:

Greg. Nyss. Contra Eunomium 3.5.5: εἰ οὖν οὐδαμοῦ ταύτην κυρίως ἔστι παραληφθῆναι τὴν ἔννοιαν, πῶς ἐνταῦθα πάλιν τοὺς ὑποκριτὰς τῶν ὀνείρων μιμούμενος ἀντὶ τῆς οὐσίας κελεύει τὸ πνεῦμα παραλαμβάνεσθαι, ἵνα συμπεράνῃ συλλογιστικῶς τὸ κατὰ τῆς οὐσίας συγκεῖσθαι τὴν κύριος λέξιν;

“If then this interpretation is nowhere to be accepted as correct, why in this place does he again imitate those who enact dreams, and insist that ‘spirit’ be taken in place of ‘being’, to enable him to draw the logical inference that the word ‘Lord’ is applied to the essential being?” (Transl. Hall 2010: 138)

Οἱ ὑποκριταὶ τῶν ὀνείρων here probably means “interpreters of dreams”, and it is probably safest to assume that, at 3.5.16, Gregory is referring to this curious trope. On the other hand, ὑποκριτής also has the meaning “one who delivers v. recites” (LSJ, s.v. ὑποκριτής II 2), so if Gregory is actually referring to people who would share their dreams, ὀνειροπόλοι presumably means “(day)dreamers”.

Later, Theodoret of Cyrrhus (AD ca. 393–ca. 466) uses the word twice with reference to the prophetic books of the Old Testament. As he appears to have lacked a knowledge of Hebrew, he was reliant on the Greek and Syriac translations (Hill 2000: 83). Here is an excerpt from his commentary on the Book of Jeremiah:

Theodoretus, Interpretatio in Jeremiam, PG 81, col. 645 (Migne): Παρεγγυᾷ δὲ αὐτοῖς, μὴ πιστεῦσαι χρησμῳδοῖς, καὶ μάντεσι, καὶ οἰωνοσκόποις, καὶ ὀνειροπόλοις, ἀλλ’ εἶξαι, καὶ δέξασθαι τὸν τοῦ Βαβυλωνίου ζυγόν· καὶ ὑπισχνεῖται εἰρήνην τοῖς πειθομένοις.

“He advised them not to trust oracle-mongers (χρησμῳδοί), seers (μάντεις), interpreters of bird signs, or ὀνειροπόλοι, but to yield to the yoke of the Babylonian; and he promised peace for those who would obey him.”

The Book of Jeremiah speaks of prophets (προφῆται in Septuaginta, Jeremiah 23) who claimed to have experienced dreams sent by God, and of dreamers (ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι in Septuaginta, Jeremiah 34) who were not to be trusted. It makes no mention of dream-interpreters, although it lists other kinds of specialists who practiced divination (Septuaginta, Jeremiah 34.9; 36.8). Theodoret has chosen to use the word ὀνειροπόλος, and he may have meant it as a reference to prophetic “dreamers” (or people who claimed to have prophetic dreams) rather than dream-interpreters. Similarly, in his commentary on the Book of Zechariah, Theodoret may have had in his mind people who claimed to have divinatory or divinely inspired dreams rather than interpreters of dreams:

Theodoretus, Interpretatio in xii prophetas minores, PG 81, col. 1928 (Migne): Πάντα τοῦ διαβόλου τὸν χορὸν εἰς μέσον παραγαγὼν, τοὺς μάντεις, τοὺς ἀστερομάντεις, τοὺς ὀνειροπόλους, καὶ τὸ ψεῦδος αὐτῶν διήλεγξε, καὶ τὴν τιμωρίαν ὑπέδειξεν.

“Leading forth the Devil’s entire troop – the seers (μάντεις), astrologers (ἀστερομάντεις), and ὀνειροπόλοι – he condemned their falsehood and laid before them their punishment.”

The passage of the Book of Zechariah that Theodoret apparently refers to speaks of “seers who told of false visions and false dreams” (οἱ μάντεις ὁράσεις ψευδεῖς, καὶ τὰ ἐνύπνια ψευδῆ ἐλάλουν, Septuaginta, Zechariah 10.2). Again, in light of the Biblical text, it seems plausible that Theodoret meant “dreamers” (or, in this case, false prophets who claimed to have prophetic dreams), not people who made their living by interpreting other people’s dreams. It is important to note, however, that his list of religious professionals adds astrologers, to whom there is no reference in the Book of Zechariah, and he could equally have wished to add “dream-interpreters”. One possible explanation for this might be that he hoped to make a “cultural adaptation” of his source text by replacing prophets who proclaimed their own visions and dreams with dream-interpreters, who may have had a more established role in the Hellenized culture of the Imperial era. This is very speculative, however, and we must conclude that we do not have enough evidence to decide which meaning of the word Theodoret intended and how it was interpreted by his readership.

Finally, a text attributed to the bishop Theodotus of Ancyra (5th c. AD) seems to use the word ὀνειροπόλος in the sense of “dreamer”, once again with a negative connotation:

Theodotus, Homilia in sanctam Deiparam et in nativitatem domini, p. 322 (Jugie): Καὶ τὸ ἀληθὲς καταλιπὼν, τὸ φάσμα ἐπεδίωξεν, καὶ δόξαν ὀνειροπόλων ἐπιποθήσας ἀδοξίᾳ περιέτυχεν, (…)

“And, leaving the truth behind, he pursued a phantom, and yearning after the fancies of ὀνειροπόλοι, he stumbled upon disgrace, (…)”

To sum up, in theological writings the word ὀνειροπόλος seems to have had decidedly negative associations, particularly with heresy. Its meaning may have been exclusively “dreamer, one who indulges in false imaginations”, not “dream-interpreter”.

Discussion

The word ὀνειροπόλος appears to be the earliest term for “dream-interpreter” attested in the Greek sources; it occurs much earlier than ὀνειροκρίτης, which replaced it in the Hellenistic era. During the Imperial era, there was scholarly debate on the word’s Homeric meaning, with some authors claiming that ὀνειροπόλοι originally divined from their own dreams rather than interpreting dreams reported by others, or that ὀνειροπόλοι were μάντεις who specialized in dreams. The theory that the ὀνειροπόλοι were originally prophetic dreamers who divined for the community from their own dreams has found some support in modern research (Kessels 1973; Brillante 2009), but the available evidence leaves room for doubt. By the classical age, the word referred to professional diviners who interpreted dreams experienced by others. In late Antiquity, it was particularly associated, although not exclusively, with Egyptian and Near Eastern practices of dream-interpretation. In some Christian authors of the later Imperial era, it appears to be used with a negative connotation, in the sense of “(prophetic) dreamer” or in the metaphorical sense of “daydreamer”, which makes one wonder if the change of meaning was from “dream-interpreter” to “dreamer” and not the other way around, no doubt under the influence of the verb ὀνειροπολέω. No historical ὀνειροπόλοι are known by name, and the only ὀνειροπόλοι mentioned by name are the mythical Eurydamas, Cleitophon, and Polyphemus.

It seems probable that, although the ὀνειροπόλοι and ὀνειροκρίται seem to have had a proper trade (or trades) centred around divining from dreams, their significance in Greece was fairly small in comparison with the μάντεις, who regularly interpreted dreams along with using other means of divination. While it is beyond doubt that, in some parts of Greece at least, there were practicing ὀνειροκρίται after the archaic era, a significant part of the attestations of ὀνειροπόλοι are found in contexts in which its (Homeric) meaning is discussed, or which place them in the sphere of mythology, or a context temporally distant from the author’s contemporary society and/or outside of Greece proper. This suggests that, by the Roman age at least, the trade of the ὀνειροπόλος was conceived of by the Greeks as archaic or oriental. The convenient hexameter form of the word raises the question of whether it may have originated in archaic epic, before being adopted in everyday spoken language; or, at least, by some prose authors, although the word may always have been mostly restricted to poetic diction.

Catalogue of occurrences

Hom. Il. 1.63, 5.149; Hdt. 1.107.1, 1.108.2, 1.128.2, 5.56.2; Philo, De somniis 2.42; Aristonicus, De signis Iliadis, in Il. 1.62, in Il. 5.149; Aristonicus, De signis Odysseae, in Od. 7.197; Apollonius, Lexicon Homericum, p. 121 (Bekker); Gal. In Hippocratis de victu acutorum commentaria, Kühn vol. 15, p. 442; Hdn. Περὶ Ἰλιακῆς προσῳδίας, GG III, II 1, p. 22 (Lentz); Poll. Onom. 7.188; Philostr. V A 2.37; Porph. Quaest. Hom. ad Il. 1.62–63, in Il. 24.221; Pseudo-Manetho, Apotelesmatica 2.206; Historia Alexandri Magni, Recensio α 1.8, 1.35; Historia Alexandri Magni, Recensio β 1.4, 1.8, 1.35; Greg. Nyss. Contra Eunomium 3.5.16; Theodoretus, Interpretatio in Jeremiam, PG 81, col. 645 (Migne); Theodoretus, Interpretatio in xii prophetas minores, PG 81, col. 1928 (Migne); Theodotus Ancyranus, Homilia in sanctam Deiparam et in nativitatem domini, p. 322 (Jugie); Orph. Arg. 33–36, 601–604; Isidorus Pelusiota, Epistulae de interpretatione divinae scripturae 2.228 (Περὶ μαντικῆς); Joannes Malalas, Chronographia 5.21, ll. 66, 72 = Dictys, BNJ 49 F 10; Hsch. Lexicon, ο 873, sv. *ὀνειροπόλος; Rhetorius, Capitula selecta (ex Rhetorii Thesauris) (e cod. Paris. gr. 2425, fol. 88v), p. 165 (Cumont)

Bibliography

Editions and translations:

Bekker, Immanuel (1833). Apollonii Sophistae Lexicon Homericum: ex recensione Immanuelis Bekkeri, Berolinum (repr. Hildesheim 1967).

Cumont, Franz (1921). Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum: Codicum Parisinorum: Partem Quartam descripsit Petrus Bourdeaux: Edidit appendice suppleta Franciscus Cumont: Tomi VIII Pars IV, Bruxellae.

Del Corno, Darius (1969). Graecorum de Re Oneirocritica Scriptorum Reliquiae, Milano – Varese.

Hall, Stuart G. (2010). “Gregory of Nyssa: Against Eunomius Book Three (Translation)”, in Johan Leemans – Matthieu Cassin (eds.), Gregory of Nyssa: Contra Eunomium III: An English Translation with Commentary and Supporting Studies, Leiden – Boston: 42–233.

Helmreich, Georgius (1914). “Galeni in Hippocratis De victu acutorum commentaria quottuor”, in Corpus Medicorum Graecorum V 9, 1: Galeni In Hippocratis De natura hominis comm. III ed. I Mewaldt: In Hippocratis De victu acutorum comm. IV ed. G. Helmreich: De diaeta Hippocratis In morbis acutis ed. I. Westenberger, Lipsia: 117–366.

Jugie, Martin (1926). Homélies mariales byzantines: Textes grecs édités par et traduits en latin par Martin Jugie des Augustins de l’Assomption II, Paris.

Lentz, August (1868). Grammatici Graeci: Partis tertiae voluminis secundi tomi secundi fasc. prior: Herodiani Technici Reliquiae: Collegit disposuit emendavit explicavit praefatus est Augustus Lentz: Tomi II fasciculus prior: Reliqua scripta prosodiaca pathologiam orthographica continens, Lipsia (repr. Hildesheim 1965).

MacPhail, John A., Jr. (2011). Porphyry’s Homeric Questions on the Iliad: Text, Translation, Commentary, Berlin – New York.

Migne, J.-P. (1864). Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graeca Prior: Patrologiae Graecae Tomus LXXXI: Θεοδωρήτου ἐπισκόπου Κύρου ἅπαντα: Theodoreti Cyrensis episcopi opera omnia: post recensionem Jacobi Sirmondi edidit, Graeca e codicibus locupletavit, antiquiores editiones adhibuit, versionem Latinam recognovit, lectionum varietatem, amplissimos indices adjecit Joan. Ludov. Schulze: Accessit auctarium Theodoreti quod olim adornavit Joan. Garnerius: Accurante et denuo recognoscente J.-P. Migne: Tomus secundus, Paris.

Research literature:

Beekes, Robert (2010). Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden – Boston.

Brillante, Carlo (2009). “Ὀνειροπόλος in Omero”, Medicina nei Secoli: Arte e Scienza, Vol. 21, No. 2: 693–719.

Casevitz, Michel (1982). “Les mots du rêve en grec ancien”, Ktèma 7: 67–73.

Chantraine, Pierre (1974). Dictionnaire Étymologique de la Langue Grecque: Histoire des Mots: Tome III: Λ–Π, Paris.

Hill, Robert C. (2000). “Theodoret’s commentary on Paul”, Estudios Bíblicos 58: 79–99.

Kajava, Mika (2023). “Some Reflections on amphìpolos, amphipoleion, and Associated Terms”, in Giuseppina Paola Viscardi (a cura di), Percorsi Interdisciplinari della Ricerca Storico-Religiosa sul Mondo Antico: atti del convegno internazionale (Bologna, 18-19 maggio 2021), Bologna: 159–174.

Kessels, Antonius H. M. (1973). Studies on the Dream in Greek Literature, Utrecht (doctoral dissertation).

Kirk, G.S. (ed.) (1990). The Iliad: a commentary: Volume II: books 5–8, Cambridge.

LSJ = Liddell, Henry George – Scott, Robert (1940). A Greek-English Lexicon: Revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie, Oxford.

Martín González, Elena – Hallof, Klaus (2020). “Thessalonicensia. Notes on IG X 2.1s (2)”, Tekmeria 15: 227–248.

Nawotka, Krzysztof (2017). The Alexander Romance by Ps.-Callisthenes: A Historical Commentary, Leiden – Boston.

Renberg, Gil. H. (2015). “The Role of Dream-Interpreters in Greco-Roman Religion”, in Gregor Weber (Hrsg.), Artemidor von Daldis und die antike Traumdeutung: Texte – Kontexte – Lektüren, Berlin – Boston: 233–262.

Vesterinen, Jamie (2022). “Generals’ Dreams before Battle: An Overview of a Recurring Motif in Ancient Historiography (4th c. BC–3rd c. AD)”, Arctos: Acta Philologica Fennica 56: 127–188.

Vinagre, Miguel A. (1996). “Die griechische Terminologie der Traumdeutung”, Mnemosyne 49: 257–282.

Yli-Karjanmaa, Sami (2021). “Clement of Alexandria’s Position on the Doctrine of Reincarnation and Some Comparisons with Philo”, in Markus Vinzent – Vít Hušek (eds.), Studia Patristica: Vol. CX: Papers Presented at the Eighteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 2019: Vol. 7: Clement of Alexandria, Leuven: 75–90.