Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

324 Late antiquityway of treatment based on a consideration of the state of the patient andthe powers of the medicament. 91 This is confirmed by Chron. 2.14.202,where Caelius refers to a ‘theory of remedies, which is called pharmacology’(medicaminum ratio, quam pharmacian appellant), where clearly a corpusof pharmacological knowledge is referred to, which he accepts.It may not be a coincidence that the criticism of experience (experimentum)occurs precisely in these therapeutic contexts. It seems that especiallyin this area, ratio is considered to be a more reliable guide than experimentum– predominantly 92 experience as it was relied upon by the Empiricists,who are criticised for their ‘vain’ attempts, that is, treating their patients bytrial and error, as in the following passage:(35) et est haec experimenti tentatio, quam Graeci schediasticen piran uocant, quaenon destinata passionibus adhibeat adiutoria, sed probanda. (Chron. 5.2.46)And this method is one of trying by means of improvisation, which the Greeks callschediastice peira, which makes use of remedies that are not directed at the diseasesthemselves but which (as yet) have to be tested. 93The wording of this passage suggests that what Caelius criticises is the lackof a suitable orientation (destinata) and the failure to make use of relevantinformation about the state of the patient and the powers of the medicament– and for this orientation and consideration of relevant information,reason is an indispensable guide. 94 To be sure, this criticism applies, tosome extent, to all non-Methodist treatment, 95 since Caelius believes also91 For other examples see Acut. 3.8.97; 3.16.137; Chron. 1.4.87. Cf. Gourevitch (1991) 69: ‘Le méthodisme,donc, nous l’avons déjà dit, est un dogmatisme; comme tout dogmatisme il va au traitement par unraisonnement.’ In some cases, e.g. Chron. 1.5.175, Caelius’ appeal to ratio is ironical, because it refersto the erroneous therapeutic reasoning of other medical schools (cf. Drabkin’s note ad loc.).92 Though not exclusively, as is shown by the criticism of Praxagoras in Chron. 1.4.135 (see n. 95 below),and of Asclepiades in Acut. 2.9.43.93 For other criticisms of experimentum see, e.g., Acut. 1.15.127; 1.17.170; 3.4.45; 3.8.97; 3.16.137; Chron.1.4.129; 1.5.178; 5.2.46. Forratio in criticism of Empiricist therapy cf. Acut. 2.29.160.94 Another illuminating passage is Acut. 3.4.45: ‘But it is clear that this is all a matter of experimentingand trial and based on obscure speculations. For the Empiricist looks only at observation, which theycall teresis, and believes that in this case only full-blooded people should be venesected, not realisingthat because of the severity of the stricture all those who suffer from synanche should be venesected,as long as their strength permits’ (sed hoc omne experimentum siue tentatio promptissime ex occultissuspicionibus uidetur esse prouisa. etenim Empiricus solam seruationem intuens, quam teresin uocant,sanguinosos nunc phlebotomandos existimat non aduertens, quia omnes synanchicos ob stricturaeuehementiam oportet phlebotomari permittentibus uiribus). Cf. also Acut. 3.8.97: ‘Frog soupmay be called an experiment and it is offensive, as of itself it has no advantage which reason proves’(iuscellum autem ranarum experimentum esse dicitur et est odiosum, in semet nihil habens commodi,quod ratio probet).95 See Chron. 1.4.135: ‘All these measures are tested neither by reason nor by diet, but by trying themout’ (haec omnia [sc. remedia Praxagorae] experta neque ratione neque regula, sed tentatione probantur).Cf. Acut. 3.8.97 (criticism of Asclepiades) and Chron. 1.5.178 (criticism of the leaders of the othersects).