304 Late antiquity
remarkably under-represented;^32 and, as John Vallance has pointed out,^33
the Methodists’ indifference to the question of the affected parts seems dif-
ficult to square with Caelius’ statements – sometimes in the same context –
that some parts suffer more than others.^34
These doctrinal difficulties deserve closer examination,^35 but for practical
reasons I cannot go into them here. Instead, I shall concentrate on what seem
to be some paradoxical elements in what may be called the epistemology,
or methodology, of Caelius Aurelianus – paradoxical in the sense that they
seem to fit in less well with Methodism as we know it, not only from the
sources just mentioned (which may have distorted Methodist doctrine) but
also from Soranus and from Caelius’ own references to Methodism. Four
issues can be distinguished here:
( 1 ) Caelius’ attitude to the ‘manifest’ and the unobservable;
( 2 ) his attitude to, and use of, causal explanations;
( 3 ) his attitude to, and use of, definitions;
( 4 ) his evaluation of reason and experience as sources of knowledge.
These issues are interrelated, but each of the paradoxes they present may
require an explanation of its own and no option should be ruled out be-
forehand. Some may only be apparent and turn out to be soluble on closer
examination; others may represent undeniable tensions in Methodism it-
self (an explanation which would be more plausible if it could be shown
that such tensions also occur in Soranus);^36 and yet others may give the
impression of being peculiarities of Caelius’ own version of Methodism, or
at any rate of a later stage in the history of the school. Yet, however tempting
the explanatory scenario of a continuing development in Methodism may
be – especially to those scholars who appreciate the originality of Caelius
Aurelianus^37 – we should be careful here, for there is hardly any evidence
on which to build such a developmental hypothesis. Of course one could
(^32) E.g.Acut. 2. 3. 13 ;Acut. 1. 15. 121 ;Chron. 2. 12. 146 .Onindicatioas the Latin translation for
D
see
Durling ( 1991 ) 112 – 13.
(^33) Vallance ( 1990 ) 140 n. 52 ; see also Gourevitch ( 1991 ) 66.
(^34) E.g.Acut. 1. 8. 55 .Cf.Acut. 2. 28. 147 , where, however, Soranus is reported to have stipulated that
the view that some parts suffer more than others is ‘a matter of conjecture and not to be accepted
as trustworthy’ (aestimatum et non ad expressam fidem accipiendum). Another interesting passage is
Acut. 3. 14. 117 (on the affected part in the case of hydrophobia), where Caelius makes three points:
( 1 ) the question of the affected part is of no relevance to the doctor; ( 2 ) the stomach suffers more
than other parts; ( 3 ) treatment is applied locally ‘wherever we find the disease to be situated’ (ubi
passionem inuenerimus).
(^35) For a discussion of Caelius’ use of Methodist concepts such as generalities see Pigeaud ( 1991 ) 41.
(^36) A thorough and systematic comparison between Soranus and Caelius Aurelianus on all of these issues
would lead into great detail and is therefore beyond the scope of this chapter. However, parallels in
Soranus are occasionally mentioned in the footnotes where this seems relevant.
(^37) See n. 2 above (especially Pigeaud, more moderately Vallance, and Hanson and Green).