Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

The Methodism of Caelius Aurelianus 301their erroneous beliefs and their ‘looseness’ of doctrine. 10 Whether thesecriticisms in Caelius’ work simply reproduce similar criticisms found inSoranus (who did not shy away from taking his fellow Methodists to taskeither, as we can see from his Gynaecia) 11 we do not know, but they doindicate that there was a development in Methodism, that there was roomfor disagreement and further refinement of doctrine, and that authorityand orthodoxy played a less prominent role here than in other medicalsects. 12It is therefore an interesting and legitimate question to ask whetherthis development continued after Soranus, or was brought to a halt bythe ‘rigour’ which Soranus is said to have instituted, 13 or to put it differently,whether Caelius (the first Methodist author after Soranus whoseworks have survived) faithfully followed the footsteps of his great exampleor had the boldness to go beyond Soranus in matters of doctrine andmethodology – and if the latter is the case, whether this is to be seen as anexpression of intellectual independence by a writer with a strong personality,or as a sign of susceptibility to influences from outside the Methodistsect. Theoretically, such a development is by no means inconceivable orimprobable. For if the tentative dating of Caelius Aurelianus in the earlyfifth century ce is correct, 14 there is a time-span of at least three centuriesseparating him from Soranus. What the historical setting of Caelius’ workswas and what the Methodist sect looked like in the early fifth centurywe do not know, but it is difficult to believe that when Caelius wrote hisworks the school had ceased to exist or had come to a complete intellectualstandstill. 1510 For criticism of Themison see, e.g., Acut. 1.16.155–65 (where, however, at the beginning (p. 108, 11–13Bendz) and at the end (p. 114, 9–10 Bendz) he is said to have done the Methodist school much goodat a later stage of his development); Chron. 1.1.50. For criticism of the older Methodists in general see,e.g., Acut. 3.4.47; Chron. 2.7.96. An interesting passage is Chron. 5.2.51, where Themison is said tohave discussed the treatment of arthritis and podagra, ‘discussing some things as a Methodist, othersas if he were not a Methodist’ (aliqua ut Methodicus, aliqua ut non Methodicus decurrens), and whereThessalus is said to have given therapeutic instructions ‘not quite perfectly, but in accordance withMethodist principles’ (imperfecte quidem, sed consequenter Methodicis intentionibus). For criticism ofThessalus see, e.g., Acut. 3.17.172 (where he is reported to have said ‘some things as a Methodist, othersin a way that deserves censure’, alia quidem ut Methodicus, alia culpabiliter); Chron. 2.7.112 (wherealso Themison is mentioned); 2.1.60–1 (where the criticism is said to be derived from Soranus);3.8.155.11 For criticism of other Methodists by Soranus see Gynaecia 3.24; 3.42; 4.39; 1.29.12 This point has also been made by Lloyd (1983) 188 and 198, and (1991a) 400–1; see also von Staden(1982) 83–5; Pigeaud (1991) 36.13 On this rigour see Chron. 2.7.109; Chron. 3.4.65. Cf.Acut. 2.9.46; Chron. 3.8.98.14 This is mainly based on linguistic and stylistic evidence such as similarities with Cassius Felix. Arenewed examination of this question would be very desirable.15 On the interest taken in Methodism in the early fifth century see Hanson and Green (1994) 1043.