326 Late antiquity
is treated by diet and drugs rather than by surgical measures, which would
suggest that it is a loose state rather than a wound; secondly, he gives the
argument quoted here: its state of looseness presents itself clearly to the
eyes, whereas to label it as a wound, though not false, requires a mental
activity.
In this surprisingly revealing passage, we read, first of all, an explicit state-
ment to the effect that the generality, in this case a loose state, presents itself
to the eyes: one can clearly see that haemorrhage is asolutio. But we also read
that apprehension by the mind –ratio atque intellectus mentis– is a means
of knowing that it is an internal wound. Caelius commits himself here to
the existence of a state which can only be apprehended by reason – the
principle oflogothe ̄or ̄etoswhich is familiar from Erasistratus and especially
Asclepiades. Indeed, another passage states this principle explicitly:
( 37 ) Sin uero occulta fuerit solutio, quam Graeci adelon appellant, aut mente sensa
signa uideantur, quae Graeci logotheoreta uocauerunt, sequitur debilitas pulsus
aegrotantis... (Chron. 3. 2. 19 )
But if the state of looseness is invisible, which the Greeks calladelos, or if signs [of
it] seem to be perceived by the mind, signs which the Greeks calllogotheoreta,itis
followed by a weakness of the pulse of the patient...
These passages clearly indicate that Caelius does not regard physiological
speculation as wholly unacceptable, and that he believes that mental ap-
prehension can lead to knowledge about internal states that can be relied
upon for treatment. Thus it is simply not true that the Methodists do not
wish to commit themselves to the existence, or the occurrence, of unob-
servable entities or processes, and there is no indication that they believe
that knowledge about the invisible isimpossible. It is rather that they prefer
not to build their therapy on such speculations or commitments; but this
is a matter ofpreference, based on the criterion of relevance,^99 rather than
a matter of unqualified rejection based on the belief that such commit-
ments would necessarily be uncertain. For the most part, the Methodists
will claim that as long as it is not necessary to build one’s therapy on such
commitments, one should do without them. However, in cases in which
reference to unobservable entities is unavoidable or even desirable, for ex-
ample because such reference provides relevant distinctions (as in the case
(^99) SeeChron. 5. 10. 105 , where Caelius comments on the dispute about ‘passages in the body that are
“rational, irrational or hidden”’ (rationales... irrationales...latentes uiae): ‘But one should not argue
too much about these, for it is sufficient for the purpose of giving an account of the symptoms to
consider only what is manifest’ (sed non oportet de his plurimum disputare, sufficit enim ad disciplinam
significationis faciundae manifesta comprobare).