316 Late antiquity
above (and their affiliation with Scepticism in particular), they were reluc-
tant to do so.^69
At first sight, Caelius seems to confirm this, for he repeatedly says that
the Methodists, in particular Soranus, refused to give definitions.^70 On the
other hand, we frequently see him (and Soranus) give concise statements of
what a disease is in a form which there is no reason not to call a definition in
the proper sense.^71 This apparent inconsistency has been noted by previous
scholars. Thus Michael Frede has suggested that although the Methodists
seem to give definitions, they are in fact giving descriptions, which do not
claim to be uniquely appropriate;^72 and Danielle Gourevitch has drawn at-
tention to the fact that what appear to be definitions are in fact accounts of
the symptoms.^73 This receives confirmation from a passage inAcut. 2. 10. 64 ,
where Caelius mentionsuera significatioas the only relevant criterion for
the identification, or recognition (intelligentia), of the disease.^74 This is a
plausible solution, but it does not work for all the definitions we encounter
in Caelius. For we sometimes see him giving definitions of a more ‘Dog-
matist’ type consisting of genus and differentia specifica. Moreover, we see
Caelius using concepts such asgenus,species,differentiaandaccidens, which,
on the above account, his Methodist background would strictly speaking
not allow him to use.
(^69) Frede ( 1987 a) 274 ff.
(^70) Acut. 2. 26. 142 : ‘In accordance with Soranus, the Methodists refuse to give definitions’ (Diffinire Me-
thodici iuxta Soranum iudicium declinant). 2. 31. 163 : ‘Soranus refused to give definitions’ (Definitiones
enim Soranus dicere declinauit).
(^71) Examples follow below. Caelius even uses the worddiffinitio(Acut. 1. 1. 21 :intelligentiam siue
diffinitionem passionis trademus dicentes...). Cf.Acut. 2. 1. 8 , where a Soranic definition is quoted
(‘Soranus... says that lethargy is a rapid or acute form of stupor accompanied by acute fevers and
a pulse that is large, slow and hollow’:Soranus uero... pressuram inquit celerem esse uel acutam
cum acutis febribus et pulsu magno ac tardo atque inani), although the termdiffinitiois not used
here.
(^72) Frede ( 1987 a) 274. (^73) Gourevitch ( 1991 ) 67.
(^74) See alsoAcut. 1. 3. 34 : ‘Our understanding of phrenitis is based on the whole gathering of symptoms’
(intelligimus phrenitim ex toto signorum concursu). Cf.Acut. 2. 3. 13 .FromAcut. 1. 1. 21 we learn that
thisintelligentia(‘understanding’, ‘identification’) is actually the required activity, although here it
isactually referred to by Caelius by means of the worddiffinitio: ‘We shall therefore present clearly
and briefly, in so far as matters allow, the understanding or definition of the affection by saying that
phrenitis is an acute derangement of the mind, accompanied by acute fever and futile groping of the
hands, as if the patient is trying to grasp something with the fingers, which the Greeks callkrokodismos
orkarphologia, and accompanied by a small, fast pulse’ (Nos igitur manifeste atque breuiter, quantum
res patiuntur, intelligentiam siue diffinitionem passionis trademus dicentes phrenitim esse alienationem
mentis celerem cum febri acuta atque manuum uano errore, ut aliquid suis digitis attrectare uideantur,
quod Graeci crocodismon siue carphologiam uocant, et paruo pulsu et denso). See alsoAcut. 2. 31. 163 :
‘For Soranus refused to give definitions. Therefore the recognition or understanding of this affection
as handed down by Artemidorus of Sidon, a follower of Erasistratus, is as follows... ’ (Definitiones
enim Soranus dicere declinauit. cognitio igitur siue intelligentia eius passionis ab Artemidoro Sidensi
Erasistrati sectatoris tradita est hoc modo.. .).