Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

306 Late antiquityof these tensions, but simply could not be bothered with them because theydid not matter for their purposes. It seems that relevance both to diagnosisand to treatment – rather than some sort of epistemological reluctance –is the crucial criterion for the Methodists not only to decide whether, in aparticular case, to go into such a question or not but also, if one has to gointo it, to decide to what degree of accuracy, detail and profoundness onehas to go into it.1 the (un)observableWe are told that the Methodists as a matter of principle based themselvesonly on what is ‘manifest’ and refused to commit themselves to the existence,and the identification, of hidden, unobservable entities, and that they didnot speculate about hidden entities because of the uncertainty this wouldinvolve. 42 This receives confirmation from Caelius Aurelianus himself, forexample in the following passages: 43(1) iudicare enim 44 est incertum, utrum passio post accessionem primam inessecorpori an soluta uideatur, siquidem ex occulta ueniat apprehensione causarum,et oportet Methodicum sine ulla falsitate regulas intendere curationum. (Chron.1.4.83)For one cannot judge with certainty whether the affection appears to be still presentin the body after the first attack or to have been overcome, as this would be basedon an obscure apprehension of causes, and a Methodist ought to adhere to therules of treatment without any falsity.(2) his enim, qui forsitan ob eius [sc. Heraclidis] defensionem dixerint eum praecauere,rursum ne febres irruant, respondemus hoc esse occultum et non oportereMethodicum esse suspicionibus incertis occupatum, et uere. (Acut. 3.21.219)For to these people, who in his [i.e. Heraclides’] defence might say that he is takingprecautions against a new attack of fever, we reply that this is an obscure matter,and a Methodist ought not to concern himself with uncertain suspicions, andrightly so.(3) erat igitur melius, ut manifestis et consequentibus uerbis intelligendam traderet[sc. Asclepiades] passionem et non per occultam atque dissonantem obtrusionem etquae fortasse neque esse probetur, sicut libris, quos Contra Sectos sumus scripturi,docebimus. (Acut. 1.1.9)42 Sor. Gyn. 1.45 and 1.52; Celsus, De medicina 1, proem, 57; Galen, De sectis 6 (pp. 13–14 Helmreich,1.79–80 K.).43 Unless otherwise indicated, all translations of Caelius are my own; however, I am happy to acknowledgemy great indebtedness to the translations by I. E. Drabkin and by I. Pape.44 etiam, Drabkin.