The Methodism of Caelius Aurelianus 319
This ban is also expressed in the following passage:
( 24 ) sed superfluum estcausas adicere, cum passionem diffinimus, quibus fuerit
confecta defluxio. item alii defluxionem esse dixerunt uentris turbationem celerem
uel acutam, quae fit ex corruptione ciborum. sed etiam nunc habet quaedam
superflua diffinitio; dehinc etiam sine corruptione ciborum aut simili causa posse
defluxionem fieri praeuide[a]mus. (Acut. 3. 22. 221 )
But it is useless, when we are giving a definition of the disease, to add the causes
through which diarrhoea is brought about. Others have said that diarrhoea is a
rapid or acute disturbance of the belly taking place as a result of food that has gone
off. Yet even now the definition contains superfluous elements; moreover, we can
perceive that diarrhoea also occurs without corruption of food or a similar case.
These very interesting passages show the compatibility of the various
Methodist attitudes towards definitions and causal explanations that we
find in Caelius. The reason why the definitions Caelius rejects here (defini-
tions of cholera and of diarrhoea given by Asclepiades and other anonymous
people) are unsatisfactory is that in their references to causes they are mis-
leading (because the cause stated does not necessarily lead to the disease in
question), incomplete (because there may be other causes as well) and factu-
ally inaccurate. The reason is not the alleged general reason why Methodists
refuse to give definitions, namely that a definition would commit them to
views about the essence of diseases, essential and accidental characteristics,
and suchlike – which would amount to the kind of commitment they do
not wish to make – this also being the reason for their reluctance to use
other instruments of Dogmatist dialectic such asgenus,species,accidens, and
so on. On the contrary, passage ( 23 ) shows, first, that Caelius (and Soranus)
have no difficulty with giving a definition, provided that it is a proper def-
inition – in this case, a concise statement of the generality (coenotes), of
the affected parts, and of the acuteness of the disease – where properness
is determined not only by factual correctness but also by the relevance of
the components of the definition to diagnosis and treatment.^77 Secondly,
the passage indicates that Caelius has no qualms about speaking about the
nature or essence of the disease (id, quod ex causis conficitur,ornatura,or
quae sit distentio, also referred to as thegenus passionisor justpassio). Indeed,
we also see Caelius at a number of occasions using concepts such asgenus,
speciesandaccidens,asin:
( 25 ) at si omnes partes fuerint solutione laxatae, similiter haec omnibus sunt ad-
hibenda, in illis etiam, quae occulta diaphoresi contabescunt. differentia etenim
accidentium mutata uidetur, genus autem passionis idem manet. (Acut. 2. 37. 217 )
(^77) Cf.Acut. 2. 1. 5 for criticism of the definition of lethargy as given by Alexander of Laodicea.