The Methodism of Caelius Aurelianus 311
irrelevant and hence useless to debate). But if it does affect treatment, one
has to ensure the greatest possible accuracy and factual correctness.^55 And
there are cases in which reference to invisible entities is simply unavoidable
because of the nature of the disease, as in the example of haemorrhage
(sanguinis fluor), which I shall discuss below.
2 causal explanation
We are told that Methodism rejected speculation about hidden causes (be-
cause they are hidden) and that, as far asvisiblecauses were concerned, they
took the view that although in some cases it may very well be possible to list
the antecedent causes of a disease, this is irrelevant to its treatment.^56 We
also hear of a work by Soranus on the causes of diseases, in which he is said
to have given a comprehensive attack on the causal explanations proposed
by other schools.^57 Again, there is abundant evidence in Caelius to confirm
these reports about the Methodists’ attitude towards causal explanation, for
example:
( 12 ) quod etiamsi lateret in partibus, periculum
qui generaliter congruas passionibus posuerunt curationes, etiam quibus particu-
lariter latentia curentur. sciendum igitur, quia haec passio [sc. oppressio] ex iisdem
causis antecedentibus fiet, quibus aliae quoque passiones efficiuntur, indigestione,
uinolentia, carnali cibo et horum similibus rebus.
quae nostra mediocritas latinizanda existimauit, se uidisse plurimos memorat ex
intemporali cibo uel plurimo puerorum ista oppressos passione. sed non inquit
necessarium praecedentium causarum differentiam in curationibus praevidere, siq-
uidem praesentia sint a Methodicis intuenda. (Acut. 2. 10. 65 )
(^55) In this respect I diverge from Frede ( 1987 a) 271 : ‘Soranus thought that there is nothing wrong
with having theoretical views, as long as one keeps in mind that they are purely speculative, and
as long as one does not base one’s treatment on these views.’ Later on, Frede does acknowledge
that the Methodists accepted ‘a more positive connection between medical theory and the art
practiced by the doctor’, but this turns out to be rather meagre (‘Speculation did help us to focus
our attention in the right direction... the theory... does provide some understanding and makes
sense of our medical knowledge’, p. 273 ) and I find no confirmation for this connection in the
texts.
(^56) Celsus, 1 , proem 54 ; cf. Soranus,Gyn. 1. 4 ; 3. 17.
(^57) Chron. 1. 3. 55 : ‘For that neither a god nor a semigod nor Eros is the cause of this disease has been
explained by Soranus most comprehensively in his books on causes, which he called “Theories about
Causes” ’ (nam quod neque deus neque semideus neque Cupido sit, libris causarum, quos Aitiologumenos
Soranus appellauit, plenissime explicauit). It is possible that this work is identical to the work referred
to asDe passionum causis(‘On the Causes of Affections’) atAcut. 1. 1. 11 , where it is suggested that
this work contained an interesting discussion about the logical status of causes, and atAcut. 1. 8. 54 ,
although there Caelius does not attribute it to Soranus but presents it as a work he himself is going
to write (for the problem of the identification of the authorialegoandnossee n. 4 above). See also
Soranus,Gyn. 3. 17 and the discussion by Lloyd ( 1983 ) 193.