De Divinatione

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  De Divinatione is a philosophical dialogue written by Marcus Tullius Cicero in 44 BC, and it asks a question that still unsettles us: can the future be known before it arrives? At its center is a debate between two brothers, Cicero and Quintus, sitting together at Tusculum, arguing whether the omens that shaped Roman military campaigns, political decisions, and everyday life carried any genuine weight. One brother says yes. The other says absolutely not. What makes the text remarkable is that both of them are right, in their own way, and Cicero lets both of them speak at length. The questions the dialogue plants are hard ones. If divination is a fraud, why did Rome organize its wars and elections around it for centuries? And if it is real, why does it so often get things wrong?

• 2. A Dialogue Between Brothers

  ›

  Quintus opens Book One with a case for divination that is surprisingly pragmatic. He does not ask the listener to accept magic. He asks them to accept evidence. Across many peoples and many eras, he observes, divinations of various kinds have been common. The fact that we cannot explain how or why something happens, he argues, is no argument against its happening. Experience and history, he claims, are enough. His analogy is pointed: medicine does not always cure, and yet no one denies that medicine is an art. A practice that fails sometimes is not thereby proven to be no practice at all. Quintus also distinguishes between two modes of divination. One is driven by skill and deduction, things like haruspicy, extispicy, augury, and astrology. These belong to a craft tradition. The other mode, foreseeing the future while dreaming or in a frenzy, he calls devoid of art. That second kind belongs to a different order of experience entirely. To support his position, Quintus offers accounts of omens, portents, and dreams, including two remarkable dreams he singles out by name: one that had come to Cicero himself, and one that had come to Quintus. He also turns to Greek history and its accounts of omens, asking whether all of that should simply be dismissed as fable.

• 3. Cicero's Refutation

  ›

  Book Two belongs to Cicero, and he wastes no time. He works through auguries, auspices, astrology, lots, dreams, and what he calls every species of omens and prodigies, and he dismantles each in turn. His method is not contempt. It is relentless logical pressure. On dreams, he offers a personal example: during his banishment, he dreamt of Marius. Not because the dream was prophetic, he argues, but because he thought about Marius constantly while awake. During sleep, he proposes, the soul is in a relaxed state, and remnants of one's waking thoughts move freely within it. The dream reflects the mind, not the future. He returns to a specific interpretive puzzle: an Olympic runner's dream, read by two different interpreters, one unnamed and one named Antipho. One reader saw victory in the dream. The other saw defeat. Both interpretations fit the same symbols. Cicero's point is plain: when two skilled augurs read the same dream in opposite directions, the skill is in the interpreter, not in the omen. Prophecies that come true do so by luck or chance, he argues, and the mythical tellings of Oracles are myths, not records. He also takes direct aim at Cratippus, disagreeing with that philosopher's certainty about the existence of divination. And he questions the gods' intentions: if they genuinely meant to warn mortals of the future, why would they couch their warnings in riddles prone to misunderstanding?

• 4. War, Omens, and Bad Decisions

  ›

  Quintus draws heavily on military history to make his case. Publius Claudius, a commander of a Roman naval fleet in the First Punic War, lost most of his navy after ignoring adverse auguries. Agamemnon lost many fleets at sea for the same reason. Gaius Flaminius, fighting in the Second Punic War, died and had his army decimated because he disregarded omens and ignored augurs who told him three times to postpone his battle against Hannibal. Quintus also invokes the Marsian war, which he says was preceded by sweating statues of the gods and unknown voices predicting conflicts. He points to the capture of Rome by the Gauls as evidence that prophecies eventually come true, citing this directly from Cicero's own writing at 1.44. Cicero's counter-examples are just as vivid. During Hannibal's exile at the court of King Prusias in Anatolia, Hannibal advised war. The king refused, saying: "I do not dare because the entrails forbid." Cicero reads this as augury enabling cowardice, or at least as a king using ritual as an excuse to avoid a hard call. In Greece during the civil war between Caesar and Pompey in the 1st century BC, augurs sent assurances to Pompey that he would win. He did not. Cicero also questions the famous belief, reported from Lebadia, that Boeotian bards predicted Theban victory based on the crowing of cocks, on the grounds that cocks crow spontaneously, influenced by nature or chance.

• 5. Superstition and Its Dangers

  ›

  Book Two closes with a chapter on the evils of superstition, and Cicero's stated aim to extirpate it. That word is precise and deliberate. He does not want merely to limit superstition or reform it. He wants it gone. The dialogue is structured so that this conclusion lands not as a sudden outburst but as the natural endpoint of everything Quintus and Cicero have been arguing. Two quotes from the text sharpen the stakes. In Book Two, section 119, Cicero writes: "Nothing so absurd can be said that some philosopher had not said it." That line is not only a joke at philosophers' expense. It is a warning about the human appetite for systems of belief, however absurd, and the authority figures who propagate them. The second quote, also from Book Two, invokes Cato: "That old saying by Cato is quite well known; he said he was surprised that one haruspex did not burst out laughing when he saw another one." Cato's skepticism, passed down and quoted by Cicero, reaches across generations. Haruspices read the entrails of sacrificed animals to divine the future. Cato thought it was a performance, and the performers knew it. De Divinatione remains one of posterity's primary sources on the workings of Roman religion, and on how the Romans thought about what counted as legitimate knowledge. That legacy points forward to the text's companion work, De Natura Deorum, which Cicero wrote as a supplement to this very dialogue.