The Methodism of Caelius Aurelianus 303
from Soranus and from external evidence provided by Galen, Celsus and
Sextus Empiricus – about Methodism.
I should not exaggerate. Certainly, Caelius provides abundant evidence of
‘orthodox’ Methodist teaching. In his works we do find frequent mentions
of the three ‘common states’ or ‘generalities’, to which he even refers by
their Greek namecoenotetes;^22 we also find the characteristic Methodist
therapy intended to restore these pathological conditions to their normal
state.^23 Again, we can perceive the characteristic Methodist indifference to
which part of the body is affected by the disease,^24 and, more generally, their
reluctance to attach any importance to questions which cannot be answered
with certainty and whose outcome is at best ‘plausible’ (existimabile).^25
We also find confirmation in Caelius for Galen’s testimony^26 about the
Methodists’ refusal to pay any attention, as far as diagnosis is concerned, to
such variables as the patient’s age, sex, constitution, way of life, the climate,
the season, and so forth^27 – factors which from Hippocratic medicine
onwards were believed to affect the bodily condition of the individual
patient and to be relevant for the therapeutic decision about which course
of treatment was to be followed. And to mention a final example, we find
abundant confirmation in Caelius for Galen’s and Celsus’ testimony about
the Methodists’ disregard for so-called ‘antecedent causes’.^28
Yet, even with regard to these examples of clear Methodist tenets in
Caelius Aurelianus, closer examination of the way in which they are imple-
mented in various contexts does raise some problems. Thus the doctrine
of thecoenotetesis not so prominent as one would expect in a systematic
work on acute and chronic diseases:^29 in a number of cases, the general
heading under which a particular disease should be classified is not dis-
cussed at all^30 or is only given in passing, and at any rate it does not seem
to have been among theprimaryconcerns of Caelius as they appear in
the questionnaire which he, whether more or less systematically, follows
in the discussion of all diseases.^31 Also the concept ofindicatio(
D
)is
(^22) E.g.Chron. 2. 12. 145 ff.; 3. 1. 12 ;Acut. 3. 16. 136.
(^23) E.g.Chron. 1. 1. 21 ff. (esp. pp. 440 , 20 and 442 , 12 Bendz); 1. 4. 97.
(^24) E.g.Acut. 1. 8. 53 – 6 ; 2. 6. 26 ; 2. 28. 147 ; 2. 34. 183.
(^25) E.g.Acut. 2. 5. 23 ; 2. 28. 147 ; 2. 35. 185 ;Chron. 4. 1. 5 ; cf. Soranus,Gyn. 1. 45.
(^26) Galen,De sectis 6 (p. 12 Helmreich, 1. 79 K.). See also Frede ( 1987 a) 268 – 9 , who rightly stresses that
in therapy the Methodists did take differentiating features into account; one may also point to Sor.,
Gyn. 1. 22 (about differentiating factors with regard to menstruation).
(^27) E.g.Acut. 1. 3. 41 ; 1. 12. 103 ; 2. 20. 125. (^28) See section 2 below.
(^29) On this see Rubinstein ( 1985 ) 129.
(^30) E.g. lethargy (Acut. 2. 1 – 9 ), defluxio (Acut. 3. 22. 220 – 2 ), cephalaea (Chron. 1. 1 ), scotomatica (Chron.
- 2 ), incubo (Chron. 1. 3 ), melancholia (Chron. 1. 6 ), hydropes (Chron. 3. 8 ) and ischias (Chron. 5. 1 ).
(^31) On this questionnaire see van der Eijk ( 1998 ) 346.