chapter 11
The Methodism of Caelius Aurelianus: some
epistemological issues
Caelius Aurelianus’ Methodism is often taken for granted. Yet the ques-
tion may be asked how profoundly, pervasively and consistently Methodist
doctrine and methodology is applied in Caelius’ work. In this chapter I
will attempt to answer this question with regard to some epistemological
principles of Methodism as they are known to us from Soranus and from
Caelius himself;^1 and I will consider whether the difficulties that arise here
are just apparent or amount to genuine inconsistencies, and, if the latter,
whether these are to be explained as the result of a development in Method-
ism after Soranus or as tensions inherent in Methodist medicine as such.
In so doing, I will treat Caelius Aurelianus (not Soranus) as the author
ofAcute Affections(Acut.) andChronic Affections(Chron.). This is not to
deny Caelius’ dependence on Soranus – a dependence which is probably
great, but in the absence of most of Soranus’ work impossible to assess –
but should leave room, at least theoretically, for Caelius’ own contribu-
tion, whether that merely consisted of translating and partially rearranging
Soranic material or of substantial revision with additions and omissions of
his own.^2
This chapter was first published in P. Mudry (ed.),Le trait ́e des Maladies aigu ̈es et des Maladies chroniques
de Caelius Aurelianus: nouvelles approches(Nantes, 1999 ) 47 – 83.
(^1) I will deal with external sources on Methodism such as Celsus, Galen and Sextus Empiricus only in
so far as they confirm what is found in Soranus and Caelius; I will not go into the question of to
what extent their reports distort Methodist doctrines (as they undoubtedly do in the case of Galen,
but perhaps less so in the case of Celsus).
(^2) Scholarly controversy continues to exist about the precise relationship of Caelius’ work to that of
Soranus, and about what exactly Caeliusclaimsthis relationship to be (on this latter point see V ́azquez
Buj ́an ( 1999 )). For other discussions of this relationship see Pigeaud ( 1982 ); Lloyd ( 1983 ) 186 n. 258 ;
Vallance ( 1990 ) 5 n. 7 ; Rubinstein ( 1985 ) 155 n. 3 ; Kollesch ( 1990 ) 5 ; Hanson and Green ( 1994 ) 979 ;
Vazquez Buj ́ ́an ( 1991 ) 87 – 97 [and van der Eijk ( 1999 c) 415 – 28 ]. A passage which deserves closer
attention in this respect isAcut. 3. 14. 105 , where Soranus seems to be just one of the authorities (apart
from Artorius and Eudemus) to whom Caelius appeals (although here, again, it is possible that
Caelius bases himself on a text by Soranus in which Soranus juxtaposes his own observations with
remarks made by Artorius and Eudemus); another passage is the proem ofChronic Affections, where
Soranus seems to be treated on a par with other authorities such as Themison and Thessalus.
299