300 Late antiquity
To be sure, there is no question about Caelius’ actually belonging to
the Methodist school, to which he frequently refers as ‘our sect’ and whose
doctrines he often presents as the standard for his therapeutic instructions.^3
Nor is there any doubt about Caelius’ commitment to Soranus, whom he
often mentions as the point of reference for his own work and with whom
he never expresses disagreement.^4 Yet the unprejudiced reader ofAcute
Affectionshas to wait until chapter 11 of the first book (a good twenty pages
in Bendz and Pape’s edition) for the first reference to the ‘Method’;^5 and
it is no earlier than in book 2 , chapter 1 that he is told that what he is
presented with there is a Latin version of Soranus.^6
To this it could be responded that this is just a matter of presentation, that
Caelius did not write for unprejudiced readers and that he must have as-
sumed his audience^7 to be sufficiently aware of his intellectual background^8
and his indebtedness to theMethodicorum princeps.^9 Yet in the absence of
any certainty about the setting and readership of Caelius’ works one has
to be careful with such presuppositions. Moreover, there is the fact that,
as far as other Methodists such as Themison, Thessalus, or more generally
‘the older Methodists’ are concerned, Caelius frequently castigates them for
(^3) E.g.Acut. 3. 4. 47 ; 2. 33. 179 ;Chron. 2. 1. 16.
(^4) The entry ‘Soranus’ in the (otherwise invaluable)index nominumto Bendz and Pape’s edition prepared
by J. Kollesch and D. Nickel should be used with caution, for it also lists (with some exceptions such
asChron. 2. 1. 60 (p. 580 , 1 ) andChron. 4. 9. 134 (p. 850 , 17 )) occurrences of the authorialegoandnosas
referring to Soranus (this is based on their view that Caelius’ work is in the main a faithful translation
of Soranus, for which see n. 2 above).
(^5) Acut. 1. 11. 99 : ‘This is the treatment of the affection phrenitis according to the Method’ (Haec est
secundum methodon curatio phreniticae passionis).
(^6) Acut. 2. 1. 8 : ‘But Soranus, whose [views] these are, which we have undertaken to present in Latin’
(Soranus uero, cuius haec sunt, quae latinizanda suscepimus). Cf.Acut. 2. 10. 65 (where, however, the
wordSoranusis an editorial addition); 2. 28. 147 ; 2. 31. 163. For this observation – that the first reference
to Soranus occurs not earlier than here and that neither in the preface ofAcute Affectionsnor in that
ofChronic Affectionsdoes Caelius give any indication that he is offering a translation of Soranus –
and for a discussion of the other passages where Caelius defines his work as a Latinisation of Soranus
(which actually represent only a small minority of all the references to Soranus) see Hanson and
Green ( 1994 ) 979 , who rightly make the point that this does not really support the hypothesis that
Caelius’ work is atranslationof Soranus (but their own translation ofcuius haec suntinAcut. 2. 1. 8
and 2. 10. 65 as ‘his works’ is unnecessarily specific: Caelius may just mean Soranus’views). They also
rightly stress that the relationship between Soranus’Gynaeciaand Caelius’ version of it need not be
the same as that between Soranus’ work on acute and chronic diseases and that of Caelius (contra
Kollesch 1990 ).
(^7) Little can be said with any certainty about Caelius’ intended audience. Nothing is known of the
Bellicus addressed in the proem toAcute Affections, but the fact that he is addressed as ‘best pupil’
(discipule summe) suggests at least some familiarity of the audience with Methodism.
(^8) This might be inferred from the occurrence of several Methodist terms in the pages precedingAcut.
- 99 , e.g. the use ofaccessioinAcut. 1. 4. 42 and 1. 5. 47 , and ofstricturaandsolutioinAcut. 1. 9. 58 and
- (^9) For this characterisation of Soranus seeChron. 1. 1. 50.