306 Late antiquity
of these tensions, but simply could not be bothered with them because they
did not matter for their purposes. It seems thatrelevanceboth to diagnosis
and to treatment – rather than some sort of epistemological reluctance –
is the crucial criterion for the Methodists not only to decide whether, in a
particular case, to go into such a question or not but also, if one has to go
into it, to decide to what degree of accuracy, detail and profoundness one
has to go into it.
1 the (un)observable
We are told that the Methodists as a matter of principle based themselves
only on what is ‘manifest’ and refused to commit themselves to the existence,
and the identification, of hidden, unobservable entities, and that they did
not speculate about hidden entities because of the uncertainty this would
involve.^42 This receives confirmation from Caelius Aurelianus himself, for
example in the following passages:^43
( 1 ) iudicare enim^44 est incertum, utrum passio post accessionem primam inesse
corpori an soluta uideatur, siquidem ex occulta ueniat apprehensione causarum,
et oportet Methodicum sine ulla falsitate regulas intendere curationum. (Chron.
- 83 )
For one cannot judge with certainty whether the affection appears to be still present
in the body after the first attack or to have been overcome, as this would be based
on an obscure apprehension of causes, and a Methodist ought to adhere to the
rules of treatment without any falsity.
( 2 ) his enim, qui forsitan ob eius [sc. Heraclidis] defensionem dixerint eum prae-
cauere, rursum ne febres irruant, respondemus hoc esse occultum et non oportere
Methodicum esse suspicionibus incertis occupatum, et uere. (Acut. 3. 21. 219 )
For to these people, who in his [i.e. Heraclides’] defence might say that he is taking
precautions against a new attack of fever, we reply that this is an obscure matter,
and a Methodist ought not to concern himself with uncertain suspicions, and
rightly so.
( 3 ) erat igitur melius, ut manifestis et consequentibus uerbis intelligendam traderet
[sc. Asclepiades] passionem et non per occultam atque dissonantem obtrusionem et
quae fortasse neque esse probetur, sicut libris, quos Contra Sectos sumus scripturi,
docebimus. (Acut. 1. 1. 9 )
(^42) Sor.Gyn. 1. 45 and 1. 52 ; Celsus,De medicina 1 , proem, 57 ; Galen,De sectis 6 (pp. 13 – 14 Helmreich,
- 79 – 80 K.).
(^43) Unless otherwise indicated, all translations of Caelius are my own; however, I am happy to acknowl-
edge my great indebtedness to the translations by I. E. Drabkin and by I. Pape.
(^44) etiam, Drabkin.