The Methodism of Caelius Aurelianus 301
their erroneous beliefs and their ‘looseness’ of doctrine.^10 Whether these
criticisms in Caelius’ work simply reproduce similar criticisms found in
Soranus (who did not shy away from taking his fellow Methodists to task
either, as we can see from hisGynaecia)^11 we do not know, but they do
indicate that there was a development in Methodism, that there was room
for disagreement and further refinement of doctrine, and that authority
and orthodoxy played a less prominent role here than in other medical
sects.^12
It is therefore an interesting and legitimate question to ask whether
this development continued after Soranus, or was brought to a halt by
the ‘rigour’ which Soranus is said to have instituted,^13 or to put it dif-
ferently, whether Caelius (the first Methodist author after Soranus whose
works have survived) faithfully followed the footsteps of his great exam-
ple or had the boldness to go beyond Soranus in matters of doctrine and
methodology – and if the latter is the case, whether this is to be seen as an
expression of intellectual independence by a writer with a strong personal-
ity, or as a sign of susceptibility to influences from outside the Methodist
sect. Theoretically, such a development is by no means inconceivable or
improbable. For if the tentative dating of Caelius Aurelianus in the early
fifth centuryceis correct,^14 there is a time-span of at least three centuries
separating him from Soranus. What the historical setting of Caelius’ works
was and what the Methodist sect looked like in the early fifth century
we do not know, but it is difficult to believe that when Caelius wrote his
works the school had ceased to exist or had come to a complete intellectual
standstill.^15
(^10) For criticism of Themison see, e.g.,Acut. 1. 16. 155 – 65 (where, however, at the beginning (p. 108 , 11 – 13
Bendz) and at the end (p. 114 , 9 – 10 Bendz) he is said to have done the Methodist school much good
at a later stage of his development);Chron. 1. 1. 50. For criticism of the older Methodists in general see,
e.g.,Acut. 3. 4. 47 ;Chron. 2. 7. 96. An interesting passage isChron. 5. 2. 51 , where Themison is said to
have discussed the treatment of arthritis and podagra, ‘discussing some things as a Methodist, others
as if he were not a Methodist’ (aliqua ut Methodicus, aliqua ut non Methodicus decurrens), and where
Thessalus is said to have given therapeutic instructions ‘not quite perfectly, but in accordance with
Methodist principles’ (imperfecte quidem, sed consequenter Methodicis intentionibus). For criticism of
Thessalus see, e.g.,Acut. 3. 17. 172 (where he is reported to have said ‘some things as a Methodist, others
in a way that deserves censure’,alia quidem ut Methodicus, alia culpabiliter);Chron. 2. 7. 112 (where
also Themison is mentioned); 2. 1. 60 – 1 (where the criticism is said to be derived from Soranus);
3. 8. 155.
(^11) For criticism of other Methodists by Soranus seeGynaecia 3. 24 ; 3. 42 ; 4. 39 ; 1. 29.
(^12) This point has also been made by Lloyd ( 1983 ) 188 and 198 , and ( 1991 a) 400 – 1 ; see also von Staden
( 1982 ) 83 – 5 ; Pigeaud ( 1991 ) 36.
(^13) On this rigour seeChron. 2. 7. 109 ;Chron. 3. 4. 65 .Cf.Acut. 2. 9. 46 ;Chron. 3. 8. 98.
(^14) This is mainly based on linguistic and stylistic evidence such as similarities with Cassius Felix. A
renewed examination of this question would be very desirable.
(^15) On the interest taken in Methodism in the early fifth century see Hanson and Green ( 1994 ) 1043.