Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

The Methodism of Caelius Aurelianus 311irrelevant and hence useless to debate). But if it does affect treatment, onehas to ensure the greatest possible accuracy and factual correctness. 55 Andthere are cases in which reference to invisible entities is simply unavoidablebecause of the nature of the disease, as in the example of haemorrhage(sanguinis fluor), which I shall discuss below.2 causal explanationWe are told that Methodism rejected speculation about hidden causes (becausethey are hidden) and that, as far as visible causes were concerned, theytook the view that although in some cases it may very well be possible to listthe antecedent causes of a disease, this is irrelevant to its treatment. 56 Wealso hear of a work by Soranus on the causes of diseases, in which he is saidto have given a comprehensive attack on the causal explanations proposedby other schools. 57 Again, there is abundant evidence in Caelius to confirmthese reports about the Methodists’ attitude towards causal explanation, forexample:(12) quod etiamsi lateret in partibus, periculum Methodicis afferebat,qui generaliter congruas passionibus posuerunt curationes, etiam quibus particulariterlatentia curentur. sciendum igitur, quia haec passio [sc. oppressio] ex iisdemcausis antecedentibus fiet, quibus aliae quoque passiones efficiuntur, indigestione,uinolentia, carnali cibo et horum similibus rebus. cuius haec sunt,quae nostra mediocritas latinizanda existimauit, se uidisse plurimos memorat exintemporali cibo uel plurimo puerorum ista oppressos passione. sed non inquitnecessarium praecedentium causarum differentiam in curationibus praevidere, siquidempraesentia sint a Methodicis intuenda. (Acut. 2.10.65)55 In this respect I diverge from Frede (1987a) 271: ‘Soranus thought that there is nothing wrongwith having theoretical views, as long as one keeps in mind that they are purely speculative, andas long as one does not base one’s treatment on these views.’ Later on, Frede does acknowledgethat the Methodists accepted ‘a more positive connection between medical theory and the artpracticed by the doctor’, but this turns out to be rather meagre (‘Speculation did help us to focusour attention in the right direction . . . the theory . . . does provide some understanding and makessense of our medical knowledge’, p. 273) and I find no confirmation for this connection in thetexts.56 Celsus, 1, proem 54; cf. Soranus, Gyn. 1.4; 3.17.57 Chron. 1.3.55: ‘For that neither a god nor a semigod nor Eros is the cause of this disease has beenexplained by Soranus most comprehensively in his books on causes, which he called “Theories aboutCauses” ’ (nam quod neque deus neque semideus neque Cupido sit, libris causarum, quos AitiologumenosSoranus appellauit, plenissime explicauit). It is possible that this work is identical to the work referredto as De passionum causis (‘On the Causes of Affections’) at Acut. 1.1.11, where it is suggested thatthis work contained an interesting discussion about the logical status of causes, and at Acut. 1.8.54,although there Caelius does not attribute it to Soranus but presents it as a work he himself is goingto write (for the problem of the identification of the authorial ego and nos see n. 4 above). See alsoSoranus, Gyn. 3.17 and the discussion by Lloyd (1983) 193.