Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

chapter 11The Methodism of Caelius Aurelianus: someepistemological issuesCaelius Aurelianus’ Methodism is often taken for granted. Yet the questionmay be asked how profoundly, pervasively and consistently Methodistdoctrine and methodology is applied in Caelius’ work. In this chapter Iwill attempt to answer this question with regard to some epistemologicalprinciples of Methodism as they are known to us from Soranus and fromCaelius himself; 1 and I will consider whether the difficulties that arise hereare just apparent or amount to genuine inconsistencies, and, if the latter,whether these are to be explained as the result of a development in Methodismafter Soranus or as tensions inherent in Methodist medicine as such.In so doing, I will treat Caelius Aurelianus (not Soranus) as the authorof Acute Affections (Acut.) and Chronic Affections (Chron.). This is not todeny Caelius’ dependence on Soranus – a dependence which is probablygreat, but in the absence of most of Soranus’ work impossible to assess –but should leave room, at least theoretically, for Caelius’ own contribution,whether that merely consisted of translating and partially rearrangingSoranic material or of substantial revision with additions and omissions ofhis own. 2This chapter was first published in P. Mudry (ed.), Le traité des Maladies aiguës et des Maladies chroniquesde Caelius Aurelianus: nouvelles approches (Nantes, 1999) 47–83.1 I will deal with external sources on Methodism such as Celsus, Galen and Sextus Empiricus only inso far as they confirm what is found in Soranus and Caelius; I will not go into the question of towhat extent their reports distort Methodist doctrines (as they undoubtedly do in the case of Galen,but perhaps less so in the case of Celsus).2 Scholarly controversy continues to exist about the precise relationship of Caelius’ work to that ofSoranus, and about what exactly Caelius claims this relationship to be (on this latter point see VázquezBuján (1999)). For other discussions of this relationship see Pigeaud (1982); Lloyd (1983) 186 n. 258;Vallance (1990) 5 n. 7; Rubinstein (1985) 155 n. 3; Kollesch (1990) 5; Hanson and Green (1994) 979;Vázquez Buján (1991) 87–97 [and van der Eijk (1999c) 415–28]. A passage which deserves closerattention in this respect is Acut. 3.14.105, where Soranus seems to be just one of the authorities (apartfrom Artorius and Eudemus) to whom Caelius appeals (although here, again, it is possible thatCaelius bases himself on a text by Soranus in which Soranus juxtaposes his own observations withremarks made by Artorius and Eudemus); another passage is the proem of Chronic Affections, whereSoranus seems to be treated on a par with other authorities such as Themison and Thessalus.299