Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

The Methodism of Caelius Aurelianus 303from Soranus and from external evidence provided by Galen, Celsus andSextus Empiricus – about Methodism.I should not exaggerate. Certainly, Caelius provides abundant evidence of‘orthodox’ Methodist teaching. In his works we do find frequent mentionsof the three ‘common states’ or ‘generalities’, to which he even refers bytheir Greek name coenotetes; 22 we also find the characteristic Methodisttherapy intended to restore these pathological conditions to their normalstate. 23 Again, we can perceive the characteristic Methodist indifference towhich part of the body is affected by the disease, 24 and, more generally, theirreluctance to attach any importance to questions which cannot be answeredwith certainty and whose outcome is at best ‘plausible’ (existimabile). 25We also find confirmation in Caelius for Galen’s testimony 26 about theMethodists’ refusal to pay any attention, as far as diagnosis is concerned, tosuch variables as the patient’s age, sex, constitution, way of life, the climate,the season, and so forth 27 – factors which from Hippocratic medicineonwards were believed to affect the bodily condition of the individualpatient and to be relevant for the therapeutic decision about which courseof treatment was to be followed. And to mention a final example, we findabundant confirmation in Caelius for Galen’s and Celsus’ testimony aboutthe Methodists’ disregard for so-called ‘antecedent causes’. 28Yet, even with regard to these examples of clear Methodist tenets inCaelius Aurelianus, closer examination of the way in which they are implementedin various contexts does raise some problems. Thus the doctrineof the coenotetes is not so prominent as one would expect in a systematicwork on acute and chronic diseases: 29 in a number of cases, the generalheading under which a particular disease should be classified is not discussedat all 30 or is only given in passing, and at any rate it does not seemto have been among the primary concerns of Caelius as they appear inthe questionnaire which he, whether more or less systematically, followsin the discussion of all diseases. 31 Also the concept of indicatio ()is22 E.g. Chron. 2.12.145ff.; 3.1.12; Acut. 3.16.136.23 E.g. Chron. 1.1.21ff. (esp. pp. 440,20 and 442,12 Bendz); 1.4.97.24 E.g. Acut. 1.8.53–6; 2.6.26; 2.28.147; 2.34.183.25 E.g. Acut. 2.5.23; 2.28.147; 2.35.185; Chron. 4.1.5; cf. Soranus, Gyn. 1.45.26 Galen, De sectis 6 (p. 12 Helmreich, 1.79 K.). See also Frede (1987a) 268–9, who rightly stresses thatin therapy the Methodists did take differentiating features into account; one may also point to Sor.,Gyn. 1.22 (about differentiating factors with regard to menstruation).27 E.g. Acut. 1.3.41; 1.12.103; 2.20.125. 28 See section 2 below.29 On this see Rubinstein (1985) 129.30 E.g. lethargy (Acut. 2.1–9), defluxio (Acut. 3.22.220–2), cephalaea (Chron. 1.1), scotomatica (Chron.1.2), incubo (Chron. 1.3), melancholia (Chron. 1.6), hydropes (Chron. 3.8) and ischias (Chron. 5.1).31 On this questionnaire see van der Eijk (1998) 346.