310 Late antiquity
Yet as for the wounds that occur as a result of haemorrhage in the inner parts, since
the generality of looseness prevails, we must judge it rather as just that, as it presents
itself first to the eyes as a looseness, and after that it seems to be apprehended as a
wound by reason and by an understanding of the mind.
Categories (i) and (ii) seem to present a problem which applies to Soranus
no less than to Caelius Aurelianus. The question whether the Methodists
believed that the generalities are observable with the senses, or at least to
the expert’s eye, has been discussed by other scholars^51 and is apparently to
be answered affirmatively, though perhaps with the reservation that they
are notalwaysobservable butmayalso, in some cases, be unobservable.^52
And Temkin has drawn attention to the fact that in Soranus’Gynaecia, too,
we find Soranus on at least two occasions engaging in ‘downright physi-
ology’ by referring to ‘ducts’ which are only visible to the mind.^53 These
instances of speculative physiology have been explained as the result of
the continuing influence of Asclepiadean doctrine on Methodism. Yet this
explanation is not entirely satisfactory in the light of the severe criticism
Asclepiades receives in Soranus and even more fiercely in Caelius Aure-
lianus. Moreover, there is evidence in Caelius himself (Acut. 3. 19. 189 ) that
some Methodists, apparently unhappy with certain aspects of Asclepiades’
physiology, modified the definition Asclepiades gave of cholera by replac-
ingconcursus corpusculorumbyraritas uiarum(although this still involves
a commitment to an unobservable entity).^54 This leaves us with the ques-
tion why the Methodists, while rejecting so many aspects of Asclepiades’
teaching, did not abolish Asclepiadean physiology altogether, if they really
believed it to be unacceptable, or inconsistent with other parts of their
system.
The answer I wish to suggest is that the Methodists, or at least Caelius,
did not think that physiological speculation was unacceptable altogether,
but that it was allowed under certain well-defined circumstances: as long as
it does not affect treatment, there is nothing wrong with it (although it is
(^51) Frede ( 1987 a) 269 – 70 ; Pigeaud ( 1991 ) 23 – 8 ; Lloyd ( 1983 ) 196.
(^52) AsChron. 3. 2. 19 shows, a generality may also be hidden and be intellectually inferred:sin uero occulta
fuerit solutio, quam Graeci adelon appellant, aut mente sensa signa uideantur, quae Graeci logotheoreta
uocauerunt etc.(for a translation see n. 46 above).
(^532). 46 and 1. 35 (Temkin ( 1956 ) xxxiii–xxxiv, nn. 31 and 32 ; see also Lloyd ( 1983 ) 192 – 3 ). It should be said
that of these passages 2. 46 is not quite conclusive, because Soranus is engaged there in a discussion
of Asclepiades’ views and may just be arguingex hypothesi. The other passage, however, leaves little
room for doubt. For references to Soranus’pneumasee n. 47 above.
(^54) ‘Again, some of our own people have handed down the same definition [sc. as that given by Asclepi-
ades for the affection of cholera], removing [from it] only the gathering of particles and adding the
widening of passages’ (item aliqui nostrorum tradiderunt eandem diffinitionem [sc. cholericae passionis
ab Asclepiade datam] solum concursum corpusculorum detrahentes atque uiarum raritatem adicientes).