Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

316 Late antiquityabove (and their affiliation with Scepticism in particular), they were reluctantto do so. 69At first sight, Caelius seems to confirm this, for he repeatedly says thatthe Methodists, in particular Soranus, refused to give definitions. 70 On theother hand, we frequently see him (and Soranus) give concise statements ofwhat a disease is in a form which there is no reason not to call a definition inthe proper sense. 71 This apparent inconsistency has been noted by previousscholars. Thus Michael Frede has suggested that although the Methodistsseem to give definitions, they are in fact giving descriptions, which do notclaim to be uniquely appropriate; 72 and Danielle Gourevitch has drawn attentionto the fact that what appear to be definitions are in fact accounts ofthe symptoms. 73 This receives confirmation from a passage in Acut. 2.10.64,where Caelius mentions uera significatio as the only relevant criterion forthe identification, or recognition (intelligentia), of the disease. 74 This is aplausible solution, but it does not work for all the definitions we encounterin Caelius. For we sometimes see him giving definitions of a more ‘Dogmatist’type consisting of genus and differentia specifica. Moreover, we seeCaelius using concepts such as genus, species, differentia and accidens, which,on the above account, his Methodist background would strictly speakingnot allow him to use.69 Frede (1987a) 274ff.70 Acut. 2.26.142: ‘In accordance with Soranus, the Methodists refuse to give definitions’ (Diffinire Methodiciiuxta Soranum iudicium declinant). 2.31.163: ‘Soranus refused to give definitions’ (Definitionesenim Soranus dicere declinauit).71 Examples follow below. Caelius even uses the word diffinitio (Acut. 1.1.21: intelligentiam siuediffinitionem passionis trademus dicentes...). Cf. Acut. 2.1.8, where a Soranic definition is quoted(‘Soranus . . . says that lethargy is a rapid or acute form of stupor accompanied by acute fevers anda pulse that is large, slow and hollow’: Soranus uero . . . pressuram inquit celerem esse uel acutamcum acutis febribus et pulsu magno ac tardo atque inani), although the term diffinitio is not usedhere.72 Frede (1987a) 274. 73 Gourevitch (1991) 67.74 See also Acut. 1.3.34: ‘Our understanding of phrenitis is based on the whole gathering of symptoms’(intelligimus phrenitim ex toto signorum concursu). Cf. Acut. 2.3.13. FromAcut. 1.1.21 we learn thatthis intelligentia (‘understanding’, ‘identification’) is actually the required activity, although here itis actually referred to by Caelius by means of the word diffinitio: ‘We shall therefore present clearlyand briefly, in so far as matters allow, the understanding or definition of the affection by saying thatphrenitis is an acute derangement of the mind, accompanied by acute fever and futile groping of thehands, as if the patient is trying to grasp something with the fingers, which the Greeks call krokodismosor karphologia, and accompanied by a small, fast pulse’ (Nos igitur manifeste atque breuiter, quantumres patiuntur, intelligentiam siue diffinitionem passionis trademus dicentes phrenitim esse alienationemmentis celerem cum febri acuta atque manuum uano errore, ut aliquid suis digitis attrectare uideantur,quod Graeci crocodismon siue carphologiam uocant, et paruo pulsu et denso). See also Acut. 2.31.163:‘For Soranus refused to give definitions. Therefore the recognition or understanding of this affectionas handed down by Artemidorus of Sidon, a follower of Erasistratus, is as follows . . . ’ (Definitionesenim Soranus dicere declinauit. cognitio igitur siue intelligentia eius passionis ab Artemidoro SidensiErasistrati sectatoris tradita est hoc modo . . . ).