Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

310 Late antiquityYet as for the wounds that occur as a result of haemorrhage in the inner parts, sincethe generality of looseness prevails, we must judge it rather as just that, as it presentsitself first to the eyes as a looseness, and after that it seems to be apprehended as awound by reason and by an understanding of the mind.Categories (i) and (ii) seem to present a problem which applies to Soranusno less than to Caelius Aurelianus. The question whether the Methodistsbelieved that the generalities are observable with the senses, or at least tothe expert’s eye, has been discussed by other scholars 51 and is apparently tobe answered affirmatively, though perhaps with the reservation that theyare not always observable but may also, in some cases, be unobservable. 52And Temkin has drawn attention to the fact that in Soranus’ Gynaecia, too,we find Soranus on at least two occasions engaging in ‘downright physiology’by referring to ‘ducts’ which are only visible to the mind. 53 Theseinstances of speculative physiology have been explained as the result ofthe continuing influence of Asclepiadean doctrine on Methodism. Yet thisexplanation is not entirely satisfactory in the light of the severe criticismAsclepiades receives in Soranus and even more fiercely in Caelius Aurelianus.Moreover, there is evidence in Caelius himself (Acut. 3.19.189) thatsome Methodists, apparently unhappy with certain aspects of Asclepiades’physiology, modified the definition Asclepiades gave of cholera by replacingconcursus corpusculorum by raritas uiarum (although this still involvesa commitment to an unobservable entity). 54 This leaves us with the questionwhy the Methodists, while rejecting so many aspects of Asclepiades’teaching, did not abolish Asclepiadean physiology altogether, if they reallybelieved it to be unacceptable, or inconsistent with other parts of theirsystem.The answer I wish to suggest is that the Methodists, or at least Caelius,did not think that physiological speculation was unacceptable altogether,but that it was allowed under certain well-defined circumstances: as long asit does not affect treatment, there is nothing wrong with it (although it is51 Frede (1987a) 269–70; Pigeaud (1991) 23–8; Lloyd (1983) 196.52 As Chron. 3.2.19 shows, a generality may also be hidden and be intellectually inferred: sin uero occultafuerit solutio, quam Graeci adelon appellant, aut mente sensa signa uideantur, quae Graeci logotheoretauocauerunt etc. (for a translation see n. 46 above).53 2.46 and 1.35 (Temkin (1956) xxxiii–xxxiv, nn. 31 and 32; see also Lloyd (1983) 192–3). It should be saidthat of these passages 2.46 is not quite conclusive, because Soranus is engaged there in a discussionof Asclepiades’ views and may just be arguing ex hypothesi. The other passage, however, leaves littleroom for doubt. For references to Soranus’ pneuma see n. 47 above.54 ‘Again, some of our own people have handed down the same definition [sc. as that given by Asclepiadesfor the affection of cholera], removing [from it] only the gathering of particles and adding thewidening of passages’ (item aliqui nostrorum tradiderunt eandem diffinitionem [sc. cholericae passionisab Asclepiade datam] solum concursum corpusculorum detrahentes atque uiarum raritatem adicientes).