Beyond Doubt—A Comparative Study of Divinatory Theories and Practices in Republican Rome and Ancient China

Abstract

Cicero’s seminal treatise, De Divinatione, demonstrates a nuanced approach that concurrently affirms and questions the significance and suitableness of divinatory practices. This dialectical perspective finds a parallel when looking at two ancient Confucian scholars, Dong Zhongshu and Xunzi, each of them offering a version of the conundrum highlighted by Cicero’s treatise. A comparative examination of Stoic philosophy, as expounded by Cicero, and of Dong Zhongshu’s The Interactions between Heaven and Humankind underscores the fact that both traditions assert that some form of interconnection between natural and supranatural phenomena is to be found. In parallel the comparison between Cicero and Xunzi (both exponents of classical rationalism) reveals their shared rejection of divinatory speculations, albeit with an acknowledgment of the political and cultural necessity of maintaining and supporting the associated ritualistic practices. Our dual comparison reveals the complex tension that was at play between speculative constructs and practical rationality in the ancient Chinese and Greco-Latin intellectual traditions.

1. Introduction

In both Ancient Rome and Ancient China, divination emerged as a pivotal means of communication between humanity and the divine, serving as a crucial aspect of state religion. The practice of divination was the subject of extensive scholarly speculation and debate. Cicero (106–43 BCE), in his work De Divinatione1 (On Divination), meticulously examines the verifiability and justification of divination, presenting arguments both in favor and against its efficacy. Similarly, among the Confucian scholars in ancient China, there existed a spectrum of perspectives on divination, ranging from supportive to skeptical. This article aims to elucidate the similarities and differences in the approaches to divination adopted by these two cultures. Through the analysis of classic texts, we can gain a deeper understanding of the different attitudes towards divination in both ancient Rome and China, as well as the underlying logic behind the retention and support of divinatory practices, by circulating between the two. As we will see, in both civilizations, underlying rationalistic considerations were balanced by considerations having to do with national stability and respect for cultural tradition.

2. Assumptions and Methodology

2.1. Juxtaposing Texts: A Comparative Approach

Cicero’s Div. is a seminal work that examines the validity of divination in ancient Rome, presenting arguments both for and against its existence. In Book I, Quintus2 advocates for the validity of divination, thus representing the Stoic school, the most popular philosophical school in Rome then, while Book II challenges this validity through the skeptical stance of Marcus (Cicero himself).3 This article will use these two contrasting viewpoints as a reference point for assessing positions defended by, respectively, Dong Zhongshu (179 BC–104 BC), 董仲舒, and Xunzi (circa 313 BC–238 BC), 荀子, two prominent representatives of Confucian thought from the late Warring States period4 to the early Han dynasty.5 First, I will undertake a comparative analysis of the Stoics’ justification for the validity of divination as articulated in Book I, drawing parallels and contrasts with Dong Zhongshu’s concept of “interaction between Heaven and Humankind” (tian ren gan ying 天人感应) from the early Han dynasty. Then, I will examine Marcus’s skepticism regarding the validity of divination presented in Book II, comparing it with Xunzi’s “division between Heaven and Humankind” (tian ren xiang fen, 天人相分).

The juxtaposition of religious texts from varied cultural contexts allows for the identification of concerns and feelings that may be universal in scope while simultaneously helping us assess cultural specificities. But it is imperative to recognize that the juxtaposition of textual materials drawn from varied cultural milieus stems from an inherent necessity, rather than being the consequence of a compelled comparative examination. As stated by B. Vermander,

“One does not circulate with impunity from one philosophy, from one wisdom, from one culture to another, as one would tour a country. The displacement must be triggered by a necessity experienced in the innermost. Following the way of water, a philosophy that wants to be comparative in scope should not proceed further as long as it has not probed deeper. In other words, a philosophy that extends over very vast areas may prove to be shallow.”

(Vermander 2023, p. 2)

The sense of necessity that drives our investigation here is triggered by the fact that both Roman and Chinese civilizations had developed a sophisticated ritual system that was inextricably political and religious. Divination plays a central role in Roman religio and in Chinese lijiao 禮教 (code of ritual and ethics), and our hypothesis is that clarifying the role and understanding of divinatory practices helps one further understand the essence of what may be called “governance through religious ritual”.

2.2. Jaspers’s Axial Period Theory

In this respect, this article employs a conceptual framework that is partly inspired by the Axial Period Theory posited by Karl Jaspers. In The Origin and Goal of History, Jaspers postulates that, between 800 BCE and 200 BCE, some ancient civilizations (China, India, Iran, Greece, and Israel) experienced nearly concurrent advancements in philosophy, religion, and ethics. These developments served as the spiritual cornerstone for subsequent civilizational development (Jaspers 2021, p. 9). The Axial Age provides us with a unique parallelism. “The Axial Period is the only one that represents a total universal parallelism on the plane of world history, and not merely the chance concurrence of particular phenomena.” (Jaspers 2021, p. 19).

The Axial Age theory has had a profound impact on Chinese academia. Many scholars in the field of Chinese philosophy have bestowed high praise upon the Axial Period Theory and have utilized this framework to inform their own research endeavors. Notably, Yu Yingshi acknowledges Karl Jaspers’s Axial Period Theory as a point of departure for his exploration of the genesis of Chinese intellectual history. Yu emphasizes, “the primary traits of Chinese culture and its position within the broader tapestry of world history” (Yu 2014, p. 3). His work underscores that the merit of the Axial Period theory does not reside solely in its purported “universality” but, rather, in its capacity to elicit a more profound comprehension of the distinctive spiritual trajectories of diverse civilizations. Chen Lai also expresses his approval of the Axial Age theory. However, he also believes China’s axial culture has particularities compared to other civilizations in that the evolution of Chinese civilization is characterized by “continuity”, rather than “ruptures” (L. Chen 2017, pp. 4–6).

When employing the theory of the Axial Period, we should be mindful of its limitations, as well as its strengths. As for strengths, this theory emphasizes the parallel development among different civilizations, potentially aiding individuals in recognizing shared trends and principles of human thought, especially when comparing religions or philosophies. Additionally, it provides a macro-historical framework that facilitates scholars’ cross-civilizational research and the identification of commonalities. However, it is crucial to identify the unique characteristics of each culture considered (which is precisely the objective that Yu Yingshi and Chen Lai seek to achieve) and rigorously assess the limits and implications of the comparisons undertaken so as not to assimilate the Axial Age hypothesis with a full-fledged philosophy of history.

2.3. Definition and Types of Divination

Central to our inquiry is a clear understanding of the concept of divination. In Div., Cicero offers a definition that serves as a starting point for our analysis. Cicero first points out that the Greek equivalent to the Latin “divinatio” is the word “mantike” (μαντική), which means “the foresight and knowledge of future event” (Div., 1.1). However, this definition does not totally align with the divinatory practices of the Roman people, in which foreknowledge plays only a secondary role at best (North 1990, pp. 60–61; Addey 2022, pp. 1–2). Even in societies that exhibit cultural affinities, such as Rome and Greece, there exist discernible differences in the comprehension and application of divination. As a representative of the Stoic school, Quintus holds that divination is “a foreknowledge and foretelling of events considered as happening by chance” (Div., 1.9).

Regardless of these variations, there is a consensus that divination constitutes a set of practices aimed at uncovering the will of the deities, a perspective that is also observable within Chinese culture. Furthermore, it is a widely held belief among ancient civilizations that the will of deities can be either directly revealed by the deities themselves or discerned by humans through the employment of certain techniques (Schmitz 1875, p. 416; Annus 2010, p. 1). Cicero draws a crucial distinction between two types of divination: artificial divination and natural divination.6

“You divided divination into two kinds, one artificial and the other natural. ‘The artificial,’ you said, ‘consists in part of conjecture and in part of long-continued observation; while the natural is that which the soul has seized, or, rather, has obtained, from a source outside itself - that is, from God, whence all human souls have been drawn off, received, or poured out.’ Under the head of artificial divination you placed predictions made from the inspection of entrails, those made from lightnings and portents, those made by augurs, and by persons who depend entirely upon premonitory signs. Under the same head you included practically every method of prophecy in which conjecture was employed. Natural divination, on the other hand, according to your view, is the result- ‘the effusion,’ as it were- of mental excitement, or it is the prophetic power which the soul has during sleep while free from bodily sensation and worldly care.”

(Div., 2.26–27)

Upon examining Dong Zhongshu’s references to calamities and anomalies alongside Xunzi’s discussions regarding divination and applying Cicero’s distinction between the two types of divination, it becomes evident that both would fall under the classification of technical divination.

2.4. Assumptions Applied

To go further, the first imperative is to confront not thought systems as such but, rather, practices and lived experience, recognizing that the latter shapes philosophical traditions as embedded into a milieu (S. Chen 2015, p. 5). When engaging in a comparative analysis of the divination theories and practices of ancient Rome and China, one discerns a fundamental similarity between these two civilizations that constitutes the basis for the plausibility of our argument: both societies held the state in the utmost reverence and esteemed it as the pinnacle of societal organization. And “religion as a social and political force, organizing the state and social memory by means of ritual practices and in accord with changing values” (Lagerwey and Kalinowski 2009, p. 35).

Cicero committed his entire lifetime to the preservation and enhancement of the Roman Republic, regarding the stability and prosperity of the state as the paramount objectives in his philosophical reflections and political endeavors and thereby reflecting a profound dedication to the public good and the perpetuation of Roman civic virtue. Analogously, “Chinese empires were established by force of arms, but sustained by religious rites and intellectual theory” (Loewe 1994). In ancient China, the historical narrative transitions from Xunzi during the Warring States period to Dong Zhongshu in the western Han dynasty. The nation traversed the turbulent era of the Warring States and the ephemeral reign of the Qin dynasty, ultimately culminating in the ascendancy of the western Han dynasty. Following the establishment and consolidation of the Han dynasty’s sovereignty over China’s extensive territories, the formulation of a cohesive national ideology emerged as a pressing imperative.

The majority of Chinese philosophers and intellectuals have historically been deeply involved in political endeavors, with only a scant few eschewing such participation. Cicero’s identity is more closely aligned with that of a statesman than a philosopher, which underscores the numerous points of convergence when comparing him to Chinese philosophers. Both Cicero and Confucian scholars in China share a common priority: the nation takes precedence over all other considerations. Dong Zhongshu may emphasize the reciprocal relationship between heaven and humankind, and Xunzi may underscore the differentiation between heaven and humankind—still, both thinkers’ ultimate objective and focal point revolve around the welfare of the state. Similarly, Cicero’s paramount concern also centers on the Roman Republic. The interweaving of these scholars’ philosophical and political arguments opens up the possibility of understanding Roman divination in comparison to Chinese divination, and vice versa, while also taking note of the unique features embedded within each civilization.

3. Comparison of the Stoics’ and Dong Zhongshu’s Theoretical Foundations for Divinatory Practices

The premise of divination is rooted in the communication between the divine (gods or Heaven) and humankind. In Book I of Div., Quintus, representing the Stoics, advocates for the validity of divination. The Stoic conception of divinity provides the theological underpinning for the validity of divination, and it is precisely due to the Stoic principles of physics and theology that the Stoics vigorously defend the existence of divinatory practices.7 Similarly, in the early Han dynasty, Dong Zhongshu’s theory of the “Interactions between Heaven and Humankind” underscores the belief in a communicative relationship between the celestial and human realms.

3.1. Stoics’ Theoretical Foundation for Divination

The Stoic justification for the validity of divination is grounded on their understanding of divinity. Quintus argues as follows: “…, if the kinds of divination which we have inherited from our forefathers and now practice are trustworthy, then there are gods and, conversely, if there are gods then there are men who have the power of divination” (Div., 1.9). Quintus further presents classic Stoic reciprocity: “If there is divination, then there are gods, and If there are gods, then there is divination” (Div., 1.10). According to Hankinson (1988) and Wardle (2006), this view requires two points to hold true: (1) every event that has happened in the universe has a cause, and all events are interlocked; (2) the gods care for humanity (Hankinson 1988, pp. 123–60; Wardle 2006, p. 124).

3.1.1. Every Event Happening in the Universe Has a Cause and All Events Are Interlocked

The Stoic school8 believes that all events occur according to the law of cause and effect, eliminating the possibility of chance.9 Therefore, the Stoic world is a causally connected world. Because of a series of unbroken causes, there is no room for the existence of chance (Cicero 1942, pp. 17 & 33). The Stoics see chance as “a cause obscure to human reasoning” (Alexander of Aphrodisias 1983, VIII). The occurrence of chance events is contingent upon factors that possess causal efficacy, although these factors elude the comprehension of human inquiry and remain obscured from our understanding. Chance is a superficial manifestation or phenomenon of fate, obscuring the deeper reality that all events perceived as chance occurrences are actually orchestrated and determined by the underlying forces of fate. Chrysippus claims that “fate is a natural everlasting ordering of the whole: one set of things follows on and succeeds another, and the interconnection is inviolable” (Long and Sedley 1987, p. 336; Sedley 2016).

Therefore, everything happens with a cause, and the fact that the cause of a chance event is merely incomprehensible to human perception does not mean that the cause does not exist. Moreover, the Stoics utilized their logical system to posit the contention that all events are necessitated by causes, thereby denying the existence of any event devoid of a causal nexus. For example, Chrysippus argues thus:

“If uncaused motion exists, it will not be the case that every proposition (termed by the logicians an axioma) is either true or false, for a thing not possessing efficient causes will be neither true nor false; but every proposition is either true or false; therefore uncaused motion does not exist. If this is so, all things that take place take place by precedent causes; if this is so, all take place by fate; it therefore follows that all things that take place take place by fate.”

(Cicero 1942, pp. 20–21)

“Therefore, what is bound not to happen does not happen, and similarly, what lacks sufficient cause in its nature to occur will not occur” (Div., 1.125).

3.1.2. Gods’ Care for Humanity

The divine–human relationship is an important aspect of divination upheld by the Stoic school. In De Natura Deorum,10 Balbus, representing the Stoic school, addresses the final issue of divinity as the gods of the Stoics being gods concerned with the well-being of mankind. “…All the things in this world which men employ have been created and provided for the sake of men.” (ND., 2:154) And Balbus provides a detailed explanation of the gods’ care for humankind.11 In Div., Quintus continued to argue about gods’ care for humanity’s well-being. Quintus argues that “They rule the world with their foresight; they concern and guide human affairs—not only as a whole, but also involving every individual” (Div., 1.117) and that “the gods will show humans signs of what is to come in the future” (Div., 1.117).

For divination to happen, gods must not be detached from the world and must communicate with humans. The gods and men are part of the same system (Wardle 2006, p. 420). This is the theological foundation for the validity of divination within the Stoic system as presented in Book I of Div. The existence of divination stems from the fact that the gods, as rulers of the universe, care for humans, thereby revealing their intentions through signs sent to humanity. The communication between gods and humans has always been upheld by the Stoics, particularly in the later period of Stoicism. During the later phases of Stoic philosophy, the Stoics, while reinforcing the inevitability of fate, sustained an enduring engagement with the divine. This intensified focus is distinctly expressed in the works of Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius during the Roman Empire, signifying a pivotal advancement in the philosophical discourse of that era. The relationship between gods and humans is the most crucial basis for the validity of divination. If, like in the theology of the Epicureans, the gods did not concern themselves with humans, then the foundation for divination would naturally cease to exist. Gods who are indifferent to human welfare are intolerable to Cicero and unacceptable to Romans (ND., 1.3; 1.123–124).

3.2. Dong Zhongshu’s Thought: The Interactions Between Heaven and Humankind

The validity of divination, as argued by the Stoics, hinges upon the recognition of the interconnectedness of the universe and the relationship between gods and humanity. Turning our attention to the Han dynasty during the corresponding historical period, we witness a significant transformation within Confucianism, the most prominent philosophical tradition of the time. This transformation was orchestrated by Dong Zhongshu, whose ideas concerning the interactions between Heaven and humankind exhibit remarkable parallels to the Stoics’ conception of the relationship between gods and humankind. Dong Zhongshu furnishes a theoretical basis for elucidating the enigmatic signs imparted by Heaven to humankind, thereby affording a more sophisticated understanding of celestial communications.

3.2.1. The Historical Evolution of the Relationship Between Heaven and Humankind in Ancient China

The relationship between Heaven and humankind is a fundamental issue in traditional Chinese philosophy (Song 2015, pp. 213–16; Yu 2016, pp. 297–98; Tang 2022, pp. 18–20). “Delving into the relationship between Heaven and Humankind and understanding the changes happening through time” was understood to be a sacred mission, and thinkers and literati bore special responsibility in that respect (Ban 2016, p. 2735). In ancient China, the conceptualization of “Heaven” (tian 天) held profound significance. The term “Heaven” encompasses a multifaceted array of meanings and levels of importance, reflecting the intricate and nuanced understanding of this concept within the realm of ancient Chinese thought.

In oracle bone inscriptions, the graphical representation of the character for “Heaven” bears a striking resemblance to the character for “big” (da 大), hinting at a potential semantic connection between the two. Additionally, within the framework of ancient Chinese political philosophy, “Heaven” is conceptualized as granting the monarch a “mandate” (ming 命), which serves as a divine sanction for his rule (Vermander 2023, p. 60). Feng Youlan has meticulously delineated five distinct interpretations of “Heaven”: 1. the Material Heaven; 2. the Dominating Heaven, also known as the Heavenly Emperor, representing a personalized god or emperor; 3. the Fateful Heaven, which signifies aspects of life that are beyond human control; 4. the Natural Heaven, which pertains to the operation of nature; and 5. the Moral-Principle Heaven, which denotes the highest principle of the universe (Feng 2011, p. 45).

The concept of a connection and interactions between Heaven and humankind can be traced back to the divinatory practices of the Shang, 商, dynasty. In the Book of Rites, it says: “The people of Yin 殷 (another name for the Shang dynasty) respected the gods and led the people in serving them” (Hu and Zhang 2017, p. 1056). During the Western Zhou dynasty, “Heaven” replaced “Di,” 帝, and the kings of Zhou were bestowed with the title of “Son of Heaven,” (tianz,i天子) symbolizing the divine sanction of imperial power. “Heaven” not only possessed a personal will but was also endowed with moral attributes: “The imperial sky shows no favoritism; it supports only virtue” (Wang and Wang 2012, p. 462). Thus, Heaven’s will was intimately connected with human affairs. Duke Zhou’s proposition of “matching heaven with virtue,” 以德配天, and “respecting virtue to protect the people,” 敬德保民, are clear expressions of the ideology of the unity of Heaven and humankind (Zhang and Mou 2007, p. 60; Jing 2017, p. 318; He 2020, pp. 267–68).

3.2.2. Interactions Between Heaven and Humankind: Interpreting Signs from Heaven

Dong Zhongshu integrated the religious and celestial doctrines of the Zhou dynasty with the philosophical theories of Yin, 阴, and Yan, 阳, as well as the Five Elements, 五行. By incorporating ideas from Legalism, 法家, and Taoism, 道家, he formulated a novel ideological framework that subsequently became the official creed of the Han dynasty12. This comprehensive system provided a systematic and coherent response to a range of philosophical, political, social, and historical questions that were prevalent during his time. Furthermore, Dong Zhongshu introduced an innovative conceptualization of the relationship between Heaven and humankind, terming it “the Interactions between Heaven and Humankind,” which represented a significant advancement in understanding the interconnectedness of celestial and terrestrial phenomena.

Dong Zhongshu believed that “Heaven and Human beings are one ‘天人一也,’” using this principle as an important theoretical foundation for the theory of “interaction between Heaven and Humankind.” He notably asserted the following: “Thus if a grouping is made according to kind, Heaven and human beings are one.” (Chunqiufanlu: The Meaning of Yin and Yang 《春秋繁露·阴阳义》)13. And he added the following:

“What gives birth cannot make human beings. The maker of human beings is Heaven. The humanness of human beings is rooted in Heaven. Heaven is also the supreme ancestor of human beings. This is why human beings are elevated to be categorized with Heaven.”

(Chunqiufanlu: Heaven, the Maker of Human Kind 《春秋繁露·为人者天》)

The belief according to which “Heaven and Human beings are one” posits a fundamental unity between Heaven and humankind, suggesting that what exists in Heaven is mirrored in humans, and vice versa. In essence, humans are viewed as a microcosm of Heaven. The subsequent theory of “interaction between Heaven and Humankind” possesses a dual meaning:

(1)

The first meaning can be summarized by the principle of “Establishing the Way by Imitating Heaven” (“法天而立道”), which is also expressed as “The norms of the people’s ruler are derived from and modeled on Heaven.” (Chunqiufanlu: the conduct of Heaven and Earth 《春秋繁露·天地之行》). As long as the ruler “establishes the Way by imitating Heaven”, Heaven will respond to the ruler’s virtue by displaying auspicious sings such as rainbows, extraordinary flowers, mythical creatures, and sweet springs. This is known as an “auspicious sign from Heaven arrives in response to sincerity”. As the Son of Heaven, the emperor is considered the offspring of the divine, tasked with carrying out Heaven’s will and governing human affairs on its behalf. “The Son of Heaven receives his mandate from heaven, and the people under heaven receive their mandate from the Son of Heaven” (Chunqiufanlu: Heaven, the Maker of Human Kind 《春秋繁露·为人者天》). This theory lends a divine and sacred aura to the power of the emperor, thus validating the rationality and enduring nature of the emperor’s governance (Ge 2014, p. 296).

(2)

The second meaning is embodied in considerations bearing on “Calamities and Anomalies” (zai yi shuo 灾异说): if the monarch defies Heaven and fails to govern with virtue, he will provoke Heaven’s wrath, resulting in various calamities and anomalies such as floods, droughts, fires, pest infestations, earthquakes, solar and lunar eclipses, and so forth.

“In general terms, phenomena in nature that deviate from the norm are called anomalies, with minor ones as calamities. Calamities often precede anomalies and then anomalies come along. Calamities are the punishment of Heaven; anomalies are the might of Heaven. If one ignores the punishment, they are then intimidated by the might. As the ‘Book of Songs’ says, ‘Fear the might of Heaven’, this is precisely what it means. All calamities and anomalies originate from the mistakes of the state. When the mistakes of the state begin to sprout, Heaven sends disasters to rebuke and warn; if one does not change after being warned, then strange and terrifying anomalies appear to shock and frighten; if one still does not fear or tremble, then calamities will ensue.”

(Dong 2012, pp. 176–77)

The thought of calamities and anomalies is a vital component of Dong Zhongshu’s system of interaction between Heaven and humankind. At the heart of this concept lies the belief in a mysterious and profound connection between the “Way of Heaven” (天道) and the “Way of Man” (人道), suggesting that the two can mutually sense and influence each other. Specifically, it holds that the laws governing the movement of Heaven (or nature, the universe)—such as the motions of the sun, moon, and stars, the change of seasons, and the occurrence of natural calamities—are not merely natural phenomena but also embody a supernatural will or force. This force can directly or indirectly impact human society, determining its fortune or misfortune. Everything in the universe, from natural phenomena to all manifestations of human society, emerges according to the mandate of Heaven. By emphasizing the warning role of calamities and anomalies, Dong Zhongshu hoped that rulers could recognize their responsibilities and missions, governing the country with virtue and benevolent policies to achieve social harmony and stability.

Compared to the non-punitive deity of the Stoic school, the concept of Heaven formulated by Dong Zhongshu embodies a dual authority that encompasses both moral will and natural law. It mandates that the ruler respond to the mandate of Heaven by cultivating self-discipline (such as “rectifying the mind and being sincere”), and by correcting his own errors in response to Heaven‘s warnings, the ruler can avert Heaven’s punishment. “Zhongshu presents humans as playing a crucial role in bringing order to the cosmos, and like Lu Jia, Dong Zhongshu emphasizes the importance of following the traditions of the sages” (Puett 2002, p. 300). Furthermore, in the Stoic system, divine reason permeates, and fate is seen as an inevitable chain of cause and effect. Individual actions in Stoicism are woven into the network of cosmic reason, with freedom lying in the voluntary acceptance of necessity. In contrast, Dong Zhongshu’s theoretical system posits “Heaven” as the supreme entity endowed with willpower, constructing a universe through yin, yang, and the five elements. And the mandate of Heaven shifts according to human morality, “calamities and anomalies as divine warnings” retain a flexible space for interaction between Heaven and humanity.

The thought of the Stoics and Dong Zhongshu represent a trend in Roman and Chinese cultural traditions that support divination. We now move towards the examination of very distinct, if not totally opposite, positions.

4. Marcus (Cicero) and Xunzi’s Doubts as to Divinatory Practices

In Book II of Div., the skeptic faction, represented by Marcus (as mentioned before, Marcus is the voice of Cicero himself) challenges the validity of divination. In parallel, we will examine the views of Xunzi, a prominent Confucian scholar of the late Warring States period, particularly his “A Discussion on Heaven,” to facilitate a comparative analysis of the classical rationality prevalent in ancient Rome and China.

4.1. Marcus’s Doubts Towards Divination

Marcus questions the validity of divination fundamentally from the standpoint of the New Academy.14 He expresses his stance towards divination at the beginning: “Therefore, I am inclined to think that there is no such thing as divination” (Div., 2.12). He later even argues as follows: “…, need I assert that divination is compounded of a little error, a little superstition, and a good deal of fraud?” (Div., 2.83).

4.1.1. Marcus as a Rationalist Philosopher

In Marcus’s argument against divination, there are four key points that demonstrate his refutation of Quintus’s position from the perspective of a rationalist philosopher.

(1)

Refutation of the Stoic fate and logic.

The Stoic argumentation of divination was based on its theology, on the divine–human relationship that Quintus had proposed earlier, and so Marcus, in order to refute the validity of divination, had to overthrow the “fate-based” universe that Quintus had established. Marcus argues that the Stoic concept of “fate” lacks rationality and is superstitious, stating, “There is nothing that ‘must happen,’ as long as we have a way to prevent it” (Div., 2.21) As discussed earlier, the Stoic universe is one that is ordered under the rule of fate. Every event is the result of a cause. There is no “chance”, and any event happens for a cause. The problem, however, is that Quintus’ definition of divination is, precisely “foreknowledge of things that happen by chance” (Div., 2.14). In Marcus’s mind, this definition is contradictory. He also employs the classic Stoic reciprocity and says the following:

“If it is impossible to foresee things that happen by chance because they are uncertain, there is no such thing as divination; if, on the contrary, they can be foreseen because they are preordained by Fate, still there is no such thing as divination, which, by your definition, deals with ‘things that happen by chance.’”

(Div., 2.25)

Furthermore, if fate is immutable, the results of divination are futile, and warning people of what will happen serves no beneficial purpose (Div., 2.20).

(2)

Refutation of Quintus’s empiricist method of argumentation.

Marcus acknowledges Quintus’s categorization of two types of divination; however, he takes issue with Quintus’s empiricist methodology. He contends that, as a philosopher, Quintus ought to employ evidence and reasoning to substantiate his propositions, rather than resorting to chance occurrences, particularly those that lack credibility (Div., 2.27). In Book I, Quintus urges his audience to disregard the causes, acknowledging his own ignorance of them. Conversely, Marcus meticulously investigates these causes: he identifies himself as a philosopher, asserting that a philosopher who fails to investigate causes is unworthy of the title.

(3)

Seeking causes within the framework of natural laws.

Marcus holds the belief that every occurring event merits an investigation into its causes within the framework of natural laws, rather than attributing them to the will of the gods. For those “so-called divinatory events” that can be rationally explained, Marcus endeavors to provide coherent rationalizations. Even for events that defy rational explanation, he strives to steer their interpretation from a rational standpoint, refraining from ascribing them to divine intervention.

(4)

Accusation of divination for political expediency.

Marcus argues that divination was used for political expediency (Div., 2.43). And when it comes to the political use of divination, Cicero would not leave Caesar alone. In Div., there are two particularly interesting statements about Caesar that Cicero makes about him. But in both places, Cicero’s purpose is to prove that there is no such thing as divination. In one case, the sacrificial bull has no heart, which is believed to be a harbinger of Caesar’s death. In Book II, however, Marcus believes it to be the cause of disease: “if I do I suspect that the bull’s heart, as the result of a disease, became much wasted and shrunken and lost its resemblance to a heart” (Div., 2.37).

Another incident of divination concerning Caesar was the revelation of Caesar’s ambition for dictatorship.

“Recently there was a rumor, which was believed at the time, but turned out to be false, that one of the interpreters of those verses (Sibylline books) was going to declare in the Senate that, for our safety, the man whom we had as king in fact should be made king also in name.”

(Div., 2.110)

Although Cicero and Caesar were enemies, they were surprisingly consistent in their attitudes toward divination, and Caesar was particularly unimpressed with haruspicy. When there was no heart for sacrificial animals, he joked to the point of remarking, “and where is the wonder that a brute animal should be found without a heart?” (Polyaenus 1793, 8. 23.33).

4.1.2. Marcus as a Rationalist Statesman

Does Marcus, after expressing doubts concerning the validity of divination, intend to eliminate divination from the Roman religious landscape? The answer is unequivocally no. Although Marcus does not adhere to the divinatory theories advanced by the Stoic school, his Romaness consistently takes precedence in pivotal instances. He not only advocates for the preservation of divination but also for its support, as it has become an emblematic aspect of Roman tradition. He says the following:

“Out of respect for the opinion of the masses and in recognition of its immense contribution to the state, we have preserved the practice of augury, its discipline, religious rituals and laws, as well as the authority of the augural college.”

(Div., 2.70)

Marcus believes that those who violate auspices deserve punishment not because of the existence of auspices themselves but because of their contempt for the religion of their ancestors. The connotation of auspices has changed, and it has become a symbol of Roman religion and tradition. Marcus believes that the purpose of the existence of augury has shifted from belief to politics (Div. 2.75).

“For my part, l agree with Gaius Marcellus, rather than with Appius Claudius—both of whom were my colleagues—and I think that, although in the beginning augural law was established from belief in divination, yet later it was maintained and preserved from considerations of political expediency.”

(Div., 2.75)

4.2. Xunzi’s Rationalist Attitude Towards Divination

As a representative figure of the Confucian school, Xunzi’s thoughts exhibit uniqueness and innovation within the Confucian tradition. In particular, Xunzi’s assertion of the inherent evilness of human nature starkly contrasts with the views held by the Confucius–Mencius school. This ideological system thus appears relatively unconventional within the Confucian school, even being regarded as an outlier.15

4.2.1. Xunzi’s Refutation of Divinatory Practices and Related Rituals

Compared to other Confucian scholars, rationalism occupies a central position in Xunzi’s ideological system. Mou Zongsan (1909–1995) once borrowed Hegel’s categories of “subjective spirit”, “objective spirit”, and “absolute spirit” to analyze the thoughts of Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi. Mou holds that Confucius tacitly conformed to the mandate of Heaven (天命) and the way of Heaven (天道), manifesting the unity of subjective and objective spirits, such an unity corresponding to the absolute spirit; Mencius revealed the absolute spirit through the subjective spirit in his statement “Humaneness is to be human” (Mencius 2009, p. 159); Xunzi, on the other hand, clearly demonstrated pure objective spirit through the “unity of rites and righteousness” (li yi zhi tong 礼义之统) (Mou 2003, p. 174). Mou argues that only by understanding the meaning of Xunzi’s “unity of rites and righteousness” can one understand the academic and spiritual philosophy of Xunzi’s thought.

Xunzi, who exemplified the “objective spirit,” displayed a remarkably similar stance towards divination as that of Cicero. Both philosophers harbored skepticism towards divination yet acknowledged its paramount significance for preservation. This nuanced position is exhaustively elaborated upon in Xunzi’s seminal work Xunzi: A Discussion of Heaven,《荀子·天论》, where he meticulously examines the complexities surrounding his skepticism and the imperative need for preserving divinatory practices. Xunzi says,

“You pray for rain and it rains. Why? For no particular reason, I say. It is just as though you had not prayed for rain and it rained anyway. The sun and moon undergo an eclipse and you try to save them; a drought occurs and you pray for rain; you consult the arts of divination before making a decision on some important matter. But it is not as though you could hope to accomplish anything by such ceremonies. It is rather to uphold tradition and ritual. Hence the gentleman regards them as cultural rituals, but the common people regard them as divine interventions. He who considers them cultural rituals is fortunate; he who considers them divine interventions is unfortunate.”

(Xunzi: A Discussion of Heaven)16

If one undertakes a meticulous sentence-by-sentence analysis of the aforementioned passage, several principles immediately stand out:

(1)

“Understanding the division between Heaven and Humankind” (ming yu tian ren zhi fen 明于天人之分).

As we just saw, and in contrast to Dong Zhongshu’s advocacy for the interactions between Heaven and humankind, Xunzi’s rationalistic outlook led him to advocate for a clear distinction between the realms of heaven and humanity. The mention of rain-related rituals that he offers is replete with historical significance: the Rites of Zhou: Office of Shamans (Zhouli: Siwu 《周礼·司巫》) records the following: “In times of severe drought, the shamans would lead in performing the ‘Yu’ dance” (Xu and Chang 2014, p. 546). The “Yu” dance (or dance at the Yu altar) was indeed an ancient shamanistic ritual for praying for rain. Although this ritual possesses a storied history in ancient China, Xunzi holds a divergent perspective regarding its consequences. He contends that rainfall does not occur as a direct result of rain-prayer ceremonies but, rather, constitutes a natural phenomenon that remains unaffected by human rituals. Xunzi posits that natural laws operate independently of human behavior and that human actions exert no influence on the natural world. This stance is in stark contrast to the philosophy of Dong Zhongshu, who maintains that the conduct of monarchs can have a profound impact on natural phenomena.

“The sun and moon undergo an eclipse and you try to save them; a drought occurs and you pray for rain; you consult the arts of divination before making a decision on some important matter. But it is not as though you could hope to accomplish anything by such ceremonies.”

This line further expands on the relationship between other natural phenomena and human rituals. Ancient Chinese would conduct rituals to save the sun or moon during solar or lunar eclipses, offer prayers for rain during droughts, and perform divination (through methods such as bone or milfoil) before making important decisions. But Xunzi believes these ceremonies and divinatory practices could not bring about the results people wanted.

Although it is a tradition to perform these rituals together with divination, Xunzi’s rationalism drew a firm line between things and self, between Heaven and humankind. He proposed “to be clear about the division between Heaven and Humankind”, 明于天人之分, i.e., to clearly recognize the difference between the duties of heaven and the duties of man, which is his basic attitude towards the relationship between Heaven and humankind. Xunzi believes “heaven” is the objective existence of nature. The sun, moon, stars, mountains, rivers, grass and trees, yin and yang, wind and rain, and changes in the four seasons all belong to the material world, and the various phenomena in the natural world are the manifestations of the contradictory movements of Heaven and Earth, yin and yang, and they all have their own laws and changes.

Therefore, Xunzi opposed the mystification of “heaven,” the use of sacrifices to seek rain to relieve drought and “consult the arts of divination before making a decision on some important matter’; he believed that the good and bad fortune of earthly governance did not depend on Heaven but on the people’s own efforts and measures of governance.

(2)

“Upholding cultural rituals” (yi wei wen ye 以为文也).

As we have seen, Xunzi emphasizes that, from the viewpoint of the gentleman, rituals and divinatory practices were not undertaken in the belief that they could truly achieve specific results, 非以为得求也, but, rather, out of a cultural necessit, 以文之也, namely, to express people’s awe of Heaven and seek spiritual comfort. Virtuous and insightful gentlemen, 君子, view these rituals as cultural expressions, 以为文, while the common people, 百姓, might perceive them as manifestations of mysterious forces, 以为神. Xunzi continued to argue that, if these rituals and divinatory practices are regarded as cultural expressions, they are auspicious because they contribute to maintaining social harmony and order; however, if they are seen as manifestations of mysterious forces and excessively relied upon or worshipped, they may bring calamities, as they can lead people to overlook the understanding and respect for natural laws, thereby making wrong decisions.

This can be seen as the clearest manifestation of Xunzi’s thoughts on divination and rituals. Xunzi’s so-called “objective spirit” is embodied in his belief that rituals have no influence on the actions of Heaven and are merely a form of adornment (K. Chen 2015, p. 26).

4.2.2. Xunzi’s Principle: “The Fate of the Nation Lies in Ritual” (Guo Zhi Ming Zai Li 国之命在礼)

Xunzi holds that rituals and divinatory practices are only a form of cultural expression; however, this expression is of paramount importance, as it concerns the fate of the nation. Still in “A Discussion of Heaven,” Xunzi further elaborates by stating that “the fate of the nation lies in ritual.” And, therefore, Xunzi advocates for “elevating ritual and righteousness, while diminishing the importance of the Book of Poetry and the Book of History,” 隆礼义, 而杀诗书 (Xunzi: on the Efficacy of Confucianism 《荀子·儒效篇》).

“Ritual”(Li 礼) serves as the consistent basic spirit and main thread in the ideological system of Xunzi. Scholars have discussed this extensively from ancient times to the present. Wang Xianqian (1842–1917) stated: “In Xunzi’s discussions on learning and governance, ritual is always taken as the core. He elaborates on it in great detail, striving to clarify its essence, which is indispensable for establishing moral teachings and practices throughout the ages.”

(Wang 1988, p. 1)

Xunzi’s promotion of “Li” evolves from his understanding of inherent human evilness, which is in stark contrast to Mencius’s advocacy of inherent goodness. Believing in human evilness, Xunzi emphasizes the necessity of using rituals to restrain desires.17 Actually, the essence of Xunzi’s philosophy is the unity of ritual and righteousness, which is “the synthesis of accumulated rituals and constitutional laws by a hundred kings into a single unified system” (Mou 2003, p. 190). The use of ritual and righteousness is not only the path of the gentleman but also the way of governing the state, as “all natural beings fall within this system and find their way” (Mou 2003, p. 190). Neither nature nor human society can exist without the unifying order of ritual and righteousness, which reveals their true meaning. Thus, Xunzi’s approach using ritual and righteousness is, in essence, the way to accomplish all things.

Xunzi’s unified system and use of ritual and righteousness, in the context of state governance, constitute the path of ritual and constitutional law. It is the method of humanization, governing the behavior of both humans and Heaven, it is capable of accomplishing everything, and there is no other way (Mou 2003, p. 190). “Rites are the highest expression of hierarchical order, the basis for strengthening the state, the way by which to create authority, the crux of achievement and fame” (Xunzi: Debating Military Affairs 《荀子·议兵》). Mou Zongsan believed that “Xunzi’s perspective on this (objective spirit) is particularly brilliant, as objective spirit must manifest in the organization of reality, with the state serving as its quintessence, what is referred to as the ‘public entity’” (Mou 2003, p. 188).

Both Cicero and Xunzi attempted to minimize the part given to the direct intervention of mystical forces in human affairs, and they reconstructed the social functions attributed to traditional rituals through instrumental rationality. However, the differences among both thinkers are also significant: Cicero criticized fatalism, on the one hand, and upheld the divination system on the other, reflecting the Romans’ compromise meant to preserve the “way of the ancestors (mos maiorum)” while absorbing Greek philosophy. In contrast, Xunzi thoroughly broke through the moralized concept of the “Mandate of Heaven” central in the pre-Qin Confucian tradition. The core of his thought lies in the complete demystification of Heaven, with rituals becoming the emotional bond that maintains social order.

5. Conclusions

This article has undertaken a comparison of the diverse understandings of divination between ancient Rome and ancient China, drawing upon Cicero’s De Divinatione as a point of reference and examining the subject from two distinct perspectives. By contrasting the Stoic philosophy of Rome with the thought of Dong Zhongshu during the western Han dynasty, the study has elucidated how the conceptualization of the relationship between the divine and humanity underpins the practice of divination in both civilizations. Both traditions endeavor to articulate the universal interconnectedness of the cosmos within the framework of a divine–human relationship. Nonetheless, the interpretation of the intimate nexus between Heaven and humanity in China is profoundly shaped by political considerations, ultimately leading to the imperial authority’s exclusive control over the faculty to mediate such communication. Additionally, a comparative examination of Cicero and Xunzi reveals the skepticism harbored by rationalist scholars from both cultures towards divination. Still, it should be noted that the first book of Div., as well as the writings of Dong Zhongshu, do not harbor such skepticism, as they anchor their understanding of divination in a cosmological perspective that sees all phenomena as interrelated: in this regard, an alteration affecting a state of things always speaks of another alteration, which happens as a trigger or a response to the one first noted. Ultimately, the preference expressed towards skepticism or correlative thinking affects only very partially the practical attitude observed towards divinatory practices and the rationale given to them: the divinatory tradition needs to be preserved and endorsed to ensure the continuity of the polity, its underlying culture, and its institutions. In no case should critical scrutiny undermine the structure that allows for the nation’s continued existence. In this respect, divination is and must remain “beyond doubt”.