302 Late antiquity
To be sure, Caelius does not mention any Methodist, or indeed any
other medical writer, known to be later than Soranus^16 (surprisingly, he
does not even mention Galen)^17 – which might suggest that at least in the
area of doxography he had nothing to add to Soranus, but for which there
may be other reasons as well^18 – and he nowhere explicitly disagrees with
Soranus. Yet we cannot rule out that Methodist doctrine developed further
and, by the time of Caelius, had, perhaps unintentionally, evolved beyond
the strict boundaries of Soranus’ teaching.^19 There are indeed indications
that this happened. Thus P. H. Schrijvers, in his commentary on Caelius’
rejection of homosexuality inChron. 4. 9 , has pointed out that Caelius’
use of a theological and indeed teleological argument about the natural
purpose of the bodily organs is incompatible with Soranus’ often expressed
anti-teleological views on nature, and is perhaps to be understood against
the later background of Christian or Stoic intolerance towards homosexual
behaviour.^20 To this it may be objected thatChron. 4. 9 is a rather exceptional
chapter and cannot be regarded as representative of the whole work;^21 but,
as I will show here, there are more signs to suggest that Caelius took a line
which is not always easy to accommodate within what we know – both
(^16) It should be stressed that of some authorities the date and identity are not known, e.g. Valens
physicus (Acut. 3. 1. 2 ) and Leonides Episyntheticus (Acut. 2. 1. 6 ).
(^17) As Mirko Grmek pointed out during the discussion of the original version of this paper, in the light
of the subject matter of theAcuteandChronic Affections, the absence of any reference to Aretaeus
of Cappadocia (first centuryce) is perhaps even more surprising; also one would expect a more
prominent place for Archigenes of Apamea, who seems to have been in close contact with the
Methodist school (cf. Waszink ( 1947 a) 25 ) but who is only mentioned twice (Acut. 2. 10. 58 and 61 ).
For Caelius’ references to earlier authorities see van der Eijk ( 1998 ) and ( 1999 c); see also von Staden
( 1999 a).
(^18) Alternatively, it may suggest an earlier date for Caelius himself (see n. 14 above); however, Caelius’
silence on intermediary authorities is not without parallel: Galen’sOn the Doctrines of Hippocrates and
Platodoes not discuss authorities later than Posidonius either (for this observation see Vegetti ( 1999 )).
For the observation that Caelius does not mention medical authors later than Soranus see Hanson and
Green ( 1994 ) 980 ; however, I fail to see the point of their remark that ‘Particularly important for the
suggestion that Caelius Aurelianus draws his doxographic accounts from Soranus is the impression
the text gives of having appended onto an existing framework opinions from Asclepiades, Themison
(e.g. Cel. Pass.ixiv 105 –xvi 165 ;iixxxix 225 –xl 234 ), and sometimes Thessalus (e.g. Tard. Pass.ii
i. 55 – 62 ).’ I do not see how the text should give this impression or why the ‘appending’ should have
been done by Caelius rather than by Soranus (who may have updated the doxography of Alexander
Philalethes, as Hanson and Green suggest on p. 980 n. 33 ). – The fact that in Caelius’Gynaecia
doxographic passages are far less frequent than in Soranus’ original, whereas such passages abound
in Caelius’AcuteandChronic Affections, suggests that in this respect there is an important difference
between the relationship between Soranus’ and Caelius’ gynaecological works and that between
Caelius’ and Soranus’ works on acute and chronic diseases (see also n. 2 above).
(^19) A similar case would be Plotinus, whose philosophical system represents a major development in
Platonic doctrine but who claimed to do nothing else than interpret Plato.
(^20) Schrijvers ( 1985 ) 22 – 5.
(^21) Caelius’ own contribution in this chapter also becomes clear in the Latin hexametric translation of
Parmenides. The chapter is also exceptional in that there is no section on therapeutics.