Edited by OWSEI TEMKIN and C. LILIAN TEMKIN TransL·tions from the German by C. Lilian Temkin


The numerous fragments have not yet been collected. Eudemos. Mnaseas. Sachs. with the exception of isolated books by Soranus. and in Latin translation. words like Dogmatic. 394 ff. the Methodists were the most important school of physicians in Imperial times. . Geschichte der Heilkunde. JuHanus (Galen X 52-53 K.. Skeptic have been capitalized when they seem to refer to definite schools rather than general concepts. 28 ff. Dionysios. H. Ilberg. The school's literary legacy is lost. Jena. Haeser. Kl. Ges. 1935. Berlin. Realenzyklopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. Most of these physicians are also enumerated in the pseudo-Galenic «ΐσανωγή (XIV. "Vorläufiges zu Caelïus Aurelianus. R. Leipzig. LXXVII 1925. Soranus. 1823. Philon. Soranus. Menemachos.-hist. Hecker. Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Medizin. 1927. Methodist.—Ed. Olympikos. Β I. Berlin.. Antipatros." in Neuburger-Pagel. Themison." Pauly-Wissowa. cols. IP. "Geschichte der Heilkunde bei den Griechen. Stuttgart: Metzler. there is no study of Methodist doctrine based on an attempt to relate it to general developments. Versuch einer pragmatischen Geschichte der Arzneikunde. J. 268 fif. Halle.). Reginos.-Ber. 173 . 1902. Handbuch der Geschichte der Medizin. phil. Empiricist. ADHERENTS TO THE SCHOOL . 328 fii. 684 Κ. ed. Moreover. De morbts acutis et chronicis (for editions. Caelius Aurelianus. see Ilberg. 1." S. QUESTIONS OF CHRONOLOGY The following are mentioned as adherents of the school: Thessalos. K.7). P. p .. F. 304 ff. 1822. ApoUonides. Supplementband VI. The most complete material is to be found in the histories of medicine (J. Κ. of which there survive: in Greek. CMG IV.. In this translation.).ÉidM^^i^^^riMiiiÉi^laÉM t THE METHODISTS* eside the Dogmatists and the Empiricists. 358-73. the only work to date has been concerned with chronology and with individual physicians belonging to the school. 1863. I. Fuchs. Proklos. Sprengel. H. OXvßWLaKOs should read * "Methodiker.

sed post ex methodica secta multa bona contulit medicinae (165). as they would Uke people to believe. Themison. and teachings of the individual physicians. whom he also mentions.PART ONE THE METHODISTS Όλϋμπικόϊ. 405. . Soranus. LVII. ch.. and the Methodists the pupils of Thessalos. ) . οι αχό τον θίσσαλοϋ Χ 305 Κ. thereby freeing his own system of errors. which they define as a certain way. What Galen considers a fact. Celsus cites as the contention of the Methodists. had they been his pupils. Themison already had a school of his own. This theory has most recently been voiced by Wellmann. ) . Concerning Meges. 176 below. namely. 406. 26. 57. too. however. a pupil of Asclepìades of Bithynia. and that he calls Thessalos to witness (Themison . οί θίσσάλείοι Χ 269 Κ. It remains uncertain whether Soranus. in fact. . II 7. For. too. . 18. planted the first seed (ττρό τούτου ò την ^ί^αν aÒToh τηί ίμιτληξίας ταϋτηί ύποθίμΐνοί Χ 52 Κ . Wellmann. and finally about Themison. before Thessalos. . for Galen himself. on the contrary—as Celsus and Galen do not— that Themison learnt from the Methodists. 116). των μ^οδικών] ίρξαντα θίσσαλόι. Celsus can even call 174 the Methodists rivals of Themison (Themisonis aemuli 27. He speaks about Diodes. . . in Caelius' opinion and in the opinion of the Methodists. is of the opinion that the Methodist school arose independently of Themison and was not founded by him. that Themison's teaching is the root of their method. too. As one of the followers of Asclepiades. cannot be so. He claims. a. II 13. but only the predecessor whose teaching constituted its point of departure. ών ó Άσκ\ηιηάοη$ καΐ θ€μίσων και θ ί σ σ α λ λ ό ΐ WtVTO τα στοιχβΐα X V I I I a 256 Κ. The founder of the Methodist school is generally taken to be Themison of Laodicea. Celsus does not say who founded Methodism. 17). calls Thessalos the founder of the school (τον της αΙρίσ€ω$ αότώ»' [sc. This is corroborated by the statement of Celsus: "On the authority of the teaching of Themison. quam ita fìniunt ut quasi viam quandam quam μWoÒov nominant . 401. . This point of view is based on the pseudo-Galenic «ίσαγωγή. Thus. therefore. veterum methodicorum . . he adopted some of the tenets of the Methodists. however. . which they call 'method' " (quidam medici saeculi nostri. Later on. b u t WEIS n o t t h e school's founder. Since Themison is not the founder of the school. 96: Themison vero iudicavit attestante Thessalo. contendunt . ipsius quoque inspicienda sunt singula (16. Themi175 . When he wrote the work which Caelius cites. Erasistratos.evpeatv TÎJÎ μΐθοδικτι$ atpkaeüJs. This. I 11. 188). έτίλΕίωσ« 5è αϋτ^ν QeacaXòs ò TpaWiavós ( X I V 684 Κ . a follower of Thessalos. According to him. Yet Themison does have a special relationship to Methodism: quomodo Themison scribens celerum passionum curationes antiquorum peccatis assentiens quaedam incondita dereliquit. cf. a medicine . p. haec nunc Themison phreniticis curandts ordinavit. Hermes. II 1. certain physicians these days claim the following . according to Celsus. Themison is the man who.). 306. whose opinions he merely transformed in his new doctrine. Asclepiadis] successoribus Themison nuper ipse quoque quaedam in senectute deflexit. that he was. saw Themison's teaching as the point of departure of the Methodists. Themison merely altered certain aspects of Asclepidean doctrine and thereby created his own doctrine (ex cuius [sc. who once designated Asclepiades. More extensive lists include doubtful or untrue data. it was rather Themison himself who was influenced by the Methodists. . Xóyois . According to Soranus. and not as belonging to the Methodist school. in Soranus' view. Thus Soranus. . too. or Thessaleans (TOUS την θβσσάΧοϋ -jrpeaßtbovTas aîptaiv. lives. cf. 396 flf. For the times.). indeed. corresponding articles in the Realencyclop'adie and M. 1). Themison is not the founder of the Methodist school. among the leaders of other sects. Thessalos is believed to have then completed the systematization of Methodist teaching at the time of Nero. 396. m. Modius Asiaticus (Kaibel. . which he later. M. and Thessalos as the ones to whom the elements of Methodist thinking should be traced back (ois sc. Wellmann. 31-19. 12 Marx). 155). medicinam . was able to avoid. as an interpretation of his views. in quibusdam errare cognoscitur nondum sectam methodum respiciens. denies that Themison founded the Methodist school. m. nam necdum purgaverat suam sectam et ob hoc phreniticorum ordinans curationem quibusdam erroribus implicatur. but. . 4). after purging his sect. alii solutionem ut Thessalus manifestât atque eius decessores ut Themison. Themison is a Dogmatist (as were all the other "aemuH Asclepiadis" 20. sub auctore ut ipsi videri volunt Themisone. counting him. . Epigrammata Graeca. . cf. esse conteridant. Asclepiades. Caelius Aurelianus describes the treatment of phrenitis according to the tenets of the school (haec est secundum methodum curatio phreniticae passionis) and then gives the opinions of other schools and their leaders (dehinc aliarum sectarum principes quid ordinaverint persequamur. 99). the Methodists merely cite him and represent their doctrine as the outcome of his. . they could not have been so designated. Mention is also made of M.). the author of which says: μ^οοικψ Òk ^p^e μίν θ€μίσων ò λαοδικίύί τψ Supias ναρ' Άσκλητιάδον τοΰ λσγικοϋ kφoδLaσθeis els τι)». 24). he was still making mistakes.Ι 176 Κ.

V 2. in the second decade of the first century A. so that on many questions he wrote like a Methodist (m. that of the pseudo-Galenic ΐίσα-γω-γή. The prerequisite of the "method" is the doctrine of Themison. at the height of his success in Nero's reign. n. for he made them as a man of over sixty (in senectute. Moreover. It is not recorded when Themison was his pupil. n. of whose dates no exact information has come down to us. as a young man. ch. Antonius Musa seems not to have altered the doctrine of Themison but that of Asclepiades. would be a man of over seventy years of age. If. I 4. 27)." then. decade A. and the school must have been founded by them. In his youth. m. too. k. 5. 23 ff. then. at the latest (cf. The term "method. Asclepiadi]. 84]). Pliny. around 30 A. Themison's pupils were not Methodists. or beginning of the third.D.). Pliny. 23). h.). which he later remodeled in accordance with Methodist doctrines. X 7 K. 51) and was unable to abide by his own law (m. It is certain that the Methodist school was founded. Soranus. 22) when he means the Methodists? To what period is the founding of the school to be attributed? Thessalos was the most esteemed physician of the time of Nero.PART ONE THE METHODISTS son's development was a complicated one. If he was then about thirty years of age (I assume a somewhat different age from Wellmann 396. contrary to the opinion of Wellmann. also tn. «. Wellmann 405 to the contrary. Themison. and for this reason Meges was not a Methodist. 685). n. But since Themison was not the founder of the "method. procedente vita.C. he was over sixty years of age.D. 179).D. this is of no relevance for the Methodist school. who places Themison's prime in 90-80 B. XXIX 6 related that Asclepiades' sect. eadem aetas Neronis principatu ad Thessalum transilivit (Pliny. 19. Themison cannot be the founder of the Methodist school. at that time. It is not possible in any case to place the founding of the school at the end of the Republic. Thus the school can have arisen at the beginning of the first century A. XXI 1908. and Galen in their statements about Themison renders untrustworthy the single contention in opposition to them. a. . then. 12). Ilbergs Jahrb. 179). Pliny. but even if. 1] altered Asclepiades' teaching. as he does of Cassius (28. X X I X 6. there is no longer any foundation for this dating. n. Since Themison's school was not the Methodist school. (Wellmann 396. Asclepiades came to Rome in 91 B. was first used by physicians of Celsus' generation. as would follow from Wellmann's. The consensus among Celsus. VII 37). was still entangled in the errors of Asclepiades [in iuventute. and he uses this dating when speaking of Themison in another passage (105.c. seque inter initia adscripsit illi [so. he can scarcely have founded the Methodist school before the end of the second.. of whom both he and Themison were 176 students. at the beginning of the first century. According to Celsus. There is nothing to contradict the contention that Thessalos was the founder of the "method.D. who treated the Emperor Augustus in 23 B. dating. 177 . as would be natural.). h. II 12. Wellmann is of the opinion that Antonius Musa." this latter arose. m. an emendation is called for: sed et ilia [so. h. How far do the other assertions about chronology coincide with this? Celsus says that physicians of his own time. still less in the year 40 B. and he may thus still have learnt from Thessalos and the "method. Pliny. Themison's own school cannot have been founded much earlier. Pliny. X X I X 6). ch.. and perhaps not until the third decade.C.. n. 140. 1 . placita Asclepiadis] mutavit).." Even if Asclepiades' death is placed in 40 B. as Galen says and as Soranus indicates by speaking of Thessalos and his followers (Thessalus et eius sectatores. h. Since Themison's new doctrine is the prerequisite of the "method. the alterations he made in the doctrine would fall roughly into the second decade of the first century A.C. therefore. like all the earlier ones. he may have lived to about 30 B. at the earliest. according to Soranus. Wellmann. ch.l l. Themison also [ipse quoque 19. 1). Celsus writes toward the end of the reign of Tiberius. Asclepiadis] Themison fuit. he was a pupil and follower of Asclepiades (cf. of his generation (medici saeculi nostri. a.c. did so. in itself not entirely convincing. But is Thessalos the originator of Methodism. one arrives at about the same foundation date as on the presupposition that Thessalos was the founder of the school. X X I X 6). . for he died in extreme old age (suprema in senecta. was abandoned. gave the name "method" to the medicine they taught (26. h... Then he founded his own school. X X I X 6).C. this occurred when he was young. I 5.D. at the eariiest. and if he heard Asclepiades teach shortly before the latter's death. perhaps at the age of twenty (Themison . Themison. for Celsus says that it had happened recently (nuper. If he is referring to changes made by Themison and then to others made by Musa. His exact dates are not known." as Soranus claims. Others. From this point of departure also. It is certain only that he heard Asclepiades teach (auditor eius [sc. and he dedicated one of his books to Nero (Galen. altered Themison's doctrine. at the earliest. Celsus 19." and since his is not the Methodist doctrine. 26.

As Galen says. . then. ä.. and Soranus in opposition to the other Methodists and says that they had quarreled with the aforementioned over certain points (δΐ€στασ'ίασαν ôè wepi τίνων kv αντ^ Galen XIV 684 Κ. As in the lists of members of the other schools. Themison. in conformity with the tendency of the pseudo-Galenic writing (cf. Themison laid the foundation of the "method" before Thessalos was active. irepì αίρ^σίων TOÏS Είσαγομίνοΐΐ scr. and. 179 178 .) is. ond century. of doubtful credibility since it is based on the presupposition.). Menemachos. The school. €Τ€\€ίωσ€ òè αϋτ-ην θΐσσα\ό$ . Galen himself gives no hint that the divergence from the "method" of the physicians cited later in the passage was greater than that of the others.For this the words offer no basis. Deichgräber. here and in the following discussion. The opposition between the parties seems to have been taken from the same pseudo-Galenic writing from which the list of adherents of the school and the chronology of its founding were derived. Κ.). and on the strength of this passage he and his followers were called young Methodists in contrast to the old Methodists (Wellmann 406fiF. Όλυμχκίοΰ—και Άττολλωΐ'Ίδου καί Σωρανοΰ καΐ. Berlin.' But it is also possible that Thessalos was only later singled out as chief representative of the "method" and elevated to the position of originator of the school for objective reasons. the external unity of the school was preserved. The pseudo-Galenic writing. in any case. . just as later it was thought possible to name founders of the Empiricist school. G. . Μΐν^μάχου καΐ . in Celsus and Galen (ττρόϊ Ύρασυβοΰλον wtpi αρΊστψ αίρ€σ€ω$ I 106 ff. preserved its unity toward the outside. But the contrast drawn between just these two groups goes back. Perhaps Celsus. II. that Themison was the founder of the "method. min. moreover. If one is unwilling to presume a direct dependence because of the probable chronological closeness of the two writings. assume that the school. adduced names. Soranus. was following this tendency when he named no names. and a number of Methodists and says that their various doctrinal views should perhaps be spoken of later. incomplete though it was. . he was not obliged to mention the originator of the school. For Galen first enumerates Thessalos. are manipulated along dóxographicisagogic lines.D. We must. Leipzig. .PART ONE THE METHODISTS Themison's own doctrine would on the same premises have originated in the first decade of the first century A. Helmreich. surveying the historical development from a considerable distance in time. above all. especially since disputes over questions of doctrine were so frequent among the Methodists. probably founded by Thessalos at the beginning of the first century A. 11). But why does Celsus not mention Thessalos? Why is he silent concerning the founder of the "method"? In the context in which he wrote. together with those just cited. Olympikos. and Julian should also be discussed (άλλα TÎJS ßiv kKéivùJV Ôiaipùivias ΐσωί αν ιτοτί καΐ ΰστίρον ^ΐη μνημομίοσαι. one would have to think. and this gave rise to μ(θοδικη$ Sé ηρξί μέν Θ^μίσων . Die griechische Empirikerschule. taking their name rather from their principles (cf. Εισαγωγή. . .). Apparently. Menemachos. . in spite of all practical differences. the others were more agreed among themselves.D. which is certainly false. had numerous adherents down to the end of the sec^ Galen's historical statements. ΠΙ ed. and the difference between these three and the rest of the Methodists was particularly great. 1930. . Although the Methodists quarreled among themselves over almost every important question and interpreted the basic doctrines in different ways (ot ." It seems to go back to an interpretation of the Galen passage from which the pseudo-Galenic writing itself derived the list of followers which it was to hand down {Galen X 52 f. of a common antecedent and of versions varying in accordance with the authors' individuality. It is highly probable that Thessalos originated the "method. to the Galenic text." The single contradictory evidence (Galen XIV 684 K. I t is for this reason that there was talk of a transformation or reformation of the "method" by Olympikos. would have been over eighty if the "method" was founded after 20 A. 'Ιουλιανού Galen Χ 53 Κ. patently. DOCTRINE Statements about Methodist doctrine are to be found. then.). Diiler.D. Olympikos.). and there is no other evidence for this contention.jrai'Tcs άλλήλοκ τ€ και τφ θίσσαλφ διτϊ('4χθϊ/σαΐ' Galen Χ 35 Κ. There is almost an element of disdain in the way he speaks of certain physicians who represent the "method. 43." just as Celsus in general rejects the Methodist system completely. K. therefore. . therefore. . . and the order is somewhat altered.. places three men. και σύν αντοϊί ye TOÏS νυν ίίρημΐνοΐΐ του . writing as a contemporary. Themison. Then Soranus and Galen. . the importance of Thessalos in the founding of the school was estabUshed by Galen's other statements. not all the names mentioned by Galen are repeated. Hermes L X V I I I 176-77). Perhaps at the beginning the Methodist school attached its doctrine just as little to the name of a single individual as did the Empiricists.

si corpus adstrictum est. therefore. needs no anatomical or physiological knowledge. In surgery. tertium mixtum. no general or special etiology. labor. are matters of indifference for the treatment. Celsus 26. satietas. aestus. et modo increscere. for these words are contained in a polemic against their point of view): qui. occurendum subinde vehementiori malo. for it is the whole body that is sick. on the material as a whole. ήτοι yàp ΐξωθΐν kariv. as does Wellmann 399. &λλοι δέ m'es . nam modo parum excernere aegros. resembles that of the other schools. its fluidity. cf. as a fragment from a Dogmatic writing by Themison). h αύτάίς των σωμάτων rats ôiooéffcat τα πάθη φασίν elvai καΐ μέμφονται yt Seivùs TOÎS eis το κΐνοϋμΐνον άττοβλίτουσιν (Galen I I I 23.. As far as the names of 180 these common conditions are concerned. Galen I 193 Κ. . modo alia parte parum. and a mixed condition. . 6 . ίνιοι δί καΐ •κάντων airKm Òho κοινότητας kviôeiKVvvai και τίνα τρΊτην μικτ'·ί}ν Galen I I I 12. quemadmodum sanis hominibus agendum sit. many others declare dryness and fluidity to be states of the body: nvès μίν yàp . 13.1 2 . The physician. 23-13. Emp. The treatment is directed toward the whole body. I l l 15. Galen III. it becomes clear that the Methodists paid as much attention as did the Dogmatists and Empiricists to human individuality and to differences of climate and location: estque etiam proprium aliquid et loci et temporis istis quoque auctoribus (the Methodists. The dietetics of the healthy. as well as variations of this in the various stages of the disease: .•••••Miuai&i«* PART ONE THE METHODISTS 1893. according to whether a foreign body has penetrated the body from outside. άμίτρωί δ' ίκκρινομίνυΐν Ιίΰσιν. the teaching concerning the treatment of the sick differs basically from Empiricist and Dogmatist theory. Galen III 12. 12). The patient's age. ut gravibus aut locis aut temporibus magis vitetur frigus. I 238). In contrast to this. but by drawing upon them all it is possible to reconstruct the system. unum adstrictum. 406). cf. . While some determine the dry and fluid according to the natural excretions. aliter vetustis. quod ex his est. therefore. He simply observes certain general conditions (communia. and habits. Only the common conditions need be observed (horum observationem medicinam esse.). Most of them. There are. Wellmann 400. ή των kv τω σώματι. 14^20). cf. constitution. modo longa. contendunt nullius causae notitiam quicquam ad curationes pertinere. si quis gravitatem corporis sensit. or a tumor has formed within the body: αί Ôè èv xupovpyiaii κοινότητΕς κατά την τον αλλότριου inre^aiptatv. . . alia nimium: haec autem genera morborum modo acuta esse. Sext. ) . and they are diseases of the whole body. cf. libido. therefore. si profluvio laborat. Χ 35 Κ . cum disputant. The disease alone is the teacher of what one needs to know (Galen III 12. rots κατά φνσιν έκκρίσίσι ταραμ^τρονσί το areyvòv καΧ το ^οώοίί. 12-19). some Methodists believe it possible to practice on the basis of nothing more than the three above-mentioned common conditions (καΙ ττύΐρώνταί 7* οί μέν των κατά ÔioiTaf νοσημάτων. digerendum esse. 28-34.) and in the pseudo-Galenic «ΐσατωγή (Galen XIV 674 K. 23). το μέν ί^ωθίν άιτλοϋν. Wellman 400 maintains that the sui^ical common conditions originated only with Thessalos. 12. alterum fluens. ac neque vomitu stomachum ncque purgatione alvum sollicitet (Celsus 28. but they interpret them variously. 8 fF. aliter iam ad sanitatem inclinatis (Celsus 26. According to this principle alone are the patient's regimen to be chosen and medicines to be given whose properties the physician knows from experience (Galen I 119 K. praecipiunt. The goal may be reached in various ways. aliter increscentibus. cf. all Methodists are in agreement. τρία δί «Kij τών kv σώματί (PseudoGalen X I V 681 Κ . as well as the climate and location. Treatment follows immediately from the common conditions observed and consists of the physician's attempt to induce the condition opposed to the disease. There are. WIM. satisque esse quaedam communia morborum intueri. modo minui (Celsus 26. 2). four common conditions in surgery that warrant intervention. κοινότητ(ί) of the body. 20-13. There are three such common conditions: the body's dryness. which the Methodists taught as did almost all ancient physicians. depending on the varying common conditions and the stages of the illness: cognito igitur eo. ουκ oKiyos χορός. magisque ut conquiescat isdem locis aut temporibus. si quidem horum tria genera esse. et aliter acutis morbis medendum. . si mixtum vitium habet. From the single short account which has been preserved. For the Methodists believe that it is unnecessary to know what part of the body is sick or. or were at least 181 . . the wording [istis auctoribus] makes it impossible to designate this.5cr. what may have caused the illness.. really only three diseases. however. ίσχομίνων μίν αυτών στ'ν^νωσιν ονομά^οντ€$ το xaOos. None of the surviving accounts gives the complete doctrine. He must make a dry body moist and dry out a moist one. διττον δα το άλλότριον. 18. medici . adopt special common conditions of surgical relevance and distinguish two kinds of intervention. modo nimium. too. continendum. aliter subsistentibus. for a short list of the common conditionsrelevant to surgery . 1 Ü. Hypotyposes. modo consistere. . . indeed.

). dosage of medicaments and the regimen were arranged according to the stage reached by the disease (οίονται τον καιρόν τοϋ νοσήματοί ποτί μάν την τροφήν. all diseases will have belonged to different common conditions. improbable. In addition. the solid.). the prescription of medicaments is more complicated. a different treatment was called for in each instance. there follows from each common condition an absolutely fixed procedure to be carried out on a predetermined scale: TO μέν ΐξωθίν. Although.g. which. in which he also speaks about the Methodists. ώ$ σκόλσψ και ßekos καΐ παν δπΐρ αΚλότρων. των περιττών το δΐ τη kX\e'al/ei άλλότριον οϋχ ώ$ π^ριττώον. since Celsus says nothing about them in his account of the Methodist school. The physician must not only know. That the Methodists should at first have been unconcerned with surgery. they claim not to depend on etiological knowledge or on observation of the age and constitution of the patient or of the season. depending on the different organs affected. Galen III 6. των δι kv τ φ σώματι το μίν τω τόπφ άΚλότρων us νπόχνμα . cf. The prophylactic condition belongs. they depend solely on the common conditions and the stages of the disease.. they could derive variation of treatment. The various cases are thus arranged under the various common conditions. on observing the common conditions.). . as a sort of appendix. and every other part of the body with no external excretion. ίνδΐ'ικννται μkyώos βοηθημάτων Galen Ι 194 Κ. . 20. 3 ff. that treatment must bring about the condition opposite to the existing one. insofar as a comparison is possible. but they do not give the same medicine to everyone.). it is permissible to fix the surgical common conditions described by him and later writers as belonging to the original doctrine of the school. so that the surgeon. and the mixed condition. It is axiomatic for them. The important thing for him is to know to what extent he should change the regimen. by virtue of this fact. the intensity of the common conditions determines the dosage of medicaments (το μέγεοοϊ των κοινοτ-ήτων . and. from this variation of the common conditions. primarily. Thus. and how extensive the surgical intervention should be.. eyes. always vary in individual cases. The dry disease comprises inflammations of the hand. which medicines should be used and in what doses. they prescribe for the whole body.^l^j^Hâ PART ONE THE METHODISTS differentiated late. Although the Methodists differ from the Dogmatists and Empiricists as far as theory is concerned. nor in all seasons {ibid. . 4)— and therefore deals with Methodist surgery just as little as with the Empiricist and Dogmatist varieties. as Wellmann contends. And. (PseudoGalen XIV 682 Κ. in the same way.κτικον eZSos. a variation in treatment is attained which corresponds to the variation in the underlying common condition. ίνδάκννται την TtKfiav k^aiptaiv. as one would expect from their theory that the diseased organ is of no importance. . to the mixed form belong diseases of the mouth. . vary in degree in youth and age and in the different seasons. the fluid. arms and legs. ποτ€ δί την ποιάν τροψην ίνΟύκνυσβαι Galen Ι (Pseudo-Galen XIV 681 Κ. is.. αλλ' ώΐ kvδekî. it is true. But in the introduction to his work.). Further. . in itself. το άναπληροΰσθαι kπίξητ€l καΐ kvÔeUvvTai Galen III 20. 16 ff. like all the others. . το δί τφ ^e7éOet άλλότριον ώϊ τά αποστάγματα . 25 ff. In dietetics. If the Methodists. foot. and that foreign bodies must be removed. . 182 183 . Celsus only discusses the dietetic doctrines of the various schools—as he expressly emphasizes (19. in practice their behavior is similar (e. and nose (Galen III 29. after all. 20 ff. as in surgery. to the surgical common conditions: ?στι òè χαρά ras iv xeipovpyiaii Tkaaapas κοινότητας καί TÒ \tyohßtvov ΊτροφνΚα. however. in practice. immediately knows what he must do. 185). with the result that the Methodists have to treat on just as individual a basis as the others. Since Galen's statements regarding Methodist doctrine agree with those of Celsus. 10 ff. that in the presence of certain phenomena a dry or moist regimen must be ordered and medicines prescribed which will evoke an opposite state. they needed only to assume the common conditions of disease. kvδfίκvvτaι τήν μΐτ6Β(σιν η άττοκατάστασιν eÎs τον ΐδιον τόπον. they do not use the same medication for different parts of the body. In theory. did not employ the same drugs for young and old (Galen III 20. 2 ff. in correspondence to the different natures of the affected organs. But sicknesses are subordinated to the three main common conditions. It thus included poisoning and similar cases.).g. unlike the Dogmatists and Empiricists. and. . δ και αυτό eis κοινότητα τάττΐται έπί των δηλητηρίων και τοξικών και Ιοβόλων πάντων και δακ^τών . τα δè π€ριαιρίσβι TtKt'iq. exact instructions are given on the correct extent of the intervention at any given time. Thus φλ^^γμονή is broken down into a dry and a mixed disease. there again followed from a single observation what the Dogmatists and Empiricists gathered from a multitude of observations. οίον τα κόλοβώματα . In this way. They take the patient's age into consideration. then.). below p. . of the thighs. In surgery. this differentiation may be of late origin. And yet. τά μ^ν διαιρίσ€ΐ μόνη χρησθαι. 19. on the basis of which the latter differentiate between drugs (e. for these.

the refutation of which by the Methodist is presupposed in the attacks of the Dogmatist (cf.g. 24 ff. in theory. For in the accounts of their opponents. I. Das medizinische System der Methodiker. though it is certain that they did defend themselves and did it well. inrò ôè ρνσ€ω$ έπί τήν 'ΐκοχην αύτήϊ. 17 flf. Yet. s a y s : ωσπβρ oiv κατά την ανά-γκην των τταθών ò σ(ceττ^tίòs ϋττό μiv Ο'νψουΐ ivi τΓΟτον οδη-γΐΐται.. in justifying their tenets.|. according to one's interpretation of the theory. also the Handbooks and especially Th. and they considered it the greatest advantage (το μkyιστov ά-γαθόν) of their doctrine that a Methodist had to learn so little (Galen 14. ΠΙ 26. OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE. can only result from logical argumentation (concerning ecôei^is as a logical concept of the Dogmatists.). ώ$ καταφί{τγ€ΐ τ κ àirò r ^ s δια ψνχο$ i:^nτΐτaμkvov τνκνώσβωΐ « r i άλβαν. 4 ff. On the other hand. Galen III 188. they claimed an ϊνδίΐξΐΐ των φαινομίνων. ΰχό 8è λιμού έπΐ τροφήν. 17 ff. and therewith the possibility of objections. 1916. the fundamental principle of Methodism.). 10 ff. ίνδξΐξι^ not τήρησίί. an individualized treatment is nevertheless possible.). since they rely on the absolute validity of their knowledge and since. 7. Jenaer medizinhistorische Beiträge. like the Dogmatists. Jena. on the formulation of the patient's regimen. 26 fï.. either an exaggerated Dogmatism or a pedestrian kind of Empiricism. They could claim that they were able to teach everything a physician has to know in six months (Galen III 15.) The Methodists believed that all the fundamentals of treatment could be represented as knowledge (ei/^ei^ts). The mixture of Dogmatist and Empiricist principles is unclear. they did not. ύττο μίν aTeyvùaeui èirt τήν χαΰνωσιν. Above all. in that case the polemic would be justified. Galen I 162 K. At the same time. 21 ff. seems full of contradictions. 19). but also according to the various stages (26. on τήρησι^ as an Empiricist concept and on its distinction from the Dogmatist evSet^Ls. την Ιατρικην) άιτοκαλοϋσιν (XIV 684 Κ. Finally. after all. Thus. but. 1 ff. and on surgery... (On Methodist drug theory. it is not possible to decide with certainty whether the introduction of the prophylactic common condition [Galen XIV 682 K. the basic concepts of Methodism. from the Empiricist point of view. ώΐ καί 185 . yet it should be more than observation. Galen III 5. cf. the ivôei^Ls των φαινομίνων..). All knowledge is supposed to be derived from the phenomena. they do not allow for individual conditions. with 21. 2 3 6 ) . 13). which furnish our only knowledge of the Methodists. HISTORICAL DEPENDENCE Opponents of the Methodists raised serious objections to their doctrine. the common conditions and the stages. the author of the pseudo-Galenic ΐίσαγω-γή rightly says: oi δί μίθοοίκοί καΐ òi Άλου '^ιηστήμην αυτήν (sc. as well as the manner of deduction from them. How can something more than observation come from the phenomena? Knowledge. and for this reason they opposed the Empiricists. Thus Galen a t one point has the Empiricist raise objections.PART ONE T H E METHODISTS 211 Κ. 24 ff. their system did not have many tenets. ibid. and a defense would have been impossible before the doctrine was modified. The controversy also pointed up the contradictions between Methodist theory and practice (e. 22. How can the Methodist defend himself? Sextus Empiricus. ούτωί καΐ 6 μίΟοδικόΐ ιατροί ΐ τ ό των παθών ίτΐ τά κατάλληλα òδηy€ίτaι. Galen III 14.).) Difficulties certainly exist. and the rejection of everything that older medicine had tested is difficult to understand. on the other hand.. not merely as observation (τήρησα). They attempted to show that Methodism was not an independent system. They agreed with the Dogmatists that experience was not enough for the physician. who believes Skeptics can only belong to the Methodist school of physicians. It was further objected that the neglect of any observation of season and locality and the failure to take human constitutions into consideration signified a narrowing of medicine which placed the treatment of 184 human beings on the same level as the treatment of animals (Ceisus 27. cf. Thus. on the basis of a system which appears to take only what is common to all into consideration. Meyer-Steineg. where these questions are discussed from the point of view of medical context. e.).)III. from the Dogmatic. 17 ff.. derive their knowledge from logical deliberations but from the very phenomena from which the Empiricists gained their experience.]. since it is the only skeptical one (Hyp. the Methodists' answer to the accusations leveled against them is deliberately withheld.g. they take up a peculiar middle position between Dogmatists and Empiricists (Ceisus 26. 8 ff.). και kiri τι των άλλων ομοίων. were subjected to detailed criticism and declared philosophically untenable (e. is not provoked by the opponents' argumentation [Galen III 18. Ceisus had already noted that treatment must be varied not only according to the variation in basic common conditions.g. which seems to be tacked on to the surgical ones. PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS. There is no record of the way in which the Methodists defended themselves against these attacks.

by the doctrine of Asclepiades—all the testimony agrees in this.ινομΐ. I 236). Methodism exploited Aenesidemean Skepticism. ό μίθοδίκόί) αντί τη$ άπό των φα. The very name μ(θ<^ο^ indicates a Skeptic stance: treatment consists of following the path prescribed by the phenomena (cf. Themison modified the Asclepiadan system by turning the atoms and pores into common conditions (on Asclepiades and Methodism. The philosophical basis of Methodism is. they renounce all semiology.νων παθών των Tt κατά φΰσιν και των irapà φνσιν οδη-γήσ^ωί ίπι κατάλληλα élvai δοκοϋντα. If one presupposes that the concepts have the same connotation for the Methodists. and he uses them only insofar as they correspond to the phenomena and the principles of action derived from the phenomena (Hyp.I 237. 14). that the Methodist physician follows when he cures his patient by giving fluids or by drying the bodily fluid up. The Skeptic declares that the phenomena are the only true things . everything that has gone before being contained in his thinking. brings nothing new to it. But he does not state whether he agrees with Sextus and draws no conclusion from that influence— insofar as he acknowledges it—for the interpretation of the Methodist system). It is true. in the Empiricist school. He calls this law of the phenomena cfictlis των φαινομένων. τοντίο yàp ονν δη μΟΡ(^ τταραχωρά. I l l 13 ff. as does the Empiricist (Galen III 14. ολ'ΐΎον ύστ€ρον oh μόνον ohhkva των %μτροσθΐν Ιατρών ίδΰν a u r a s φησιν. 240. Concerning everything but phenomena the Skeptic withholds judgment: he does not claim that the hidden is unknowable. But in what way is Methodism dependent on the preceding and contemporary medical doctrines? What medical problems provoked it? Methodism is shaped by the Themisonian system and. rather. Thus the Methodists pay homage to nothing but the phenomena (Galen ΠΙ 16. But then all fundamental concepts of Methodism must be capable of Skeptic explanation. And Themison stands as the point of departure of Methodism because it was he who introduced the concept of common conditions into medicine. I 21-22). just as there exists for him no sign of the hidden (Hyp.). II 228). 3). that they exist is not disputed (Hyp. The Methodists deny all etiological 186 knowledge. then. and. Methodist medicine must be interpreted as a transposition of Aenesidemean Skepticism (Wellmann was the first to note the influence of Skepticism on Methodism. indeed the whole system. indeed. he tests its formal reliability. Wellmann 398. Each of these points of view. καθάπ€ρ τατρί τίκνα γνήσια r a s T€/îOTwÔ€is keiras κοινότητας (Galen Χ 35 Κ. At the same time. cf. ώ$ και έτί δίφονς και kiri λιμοϋ καΐ των άλλων υ-κίμιμνασκον (240). The Skeptic is aware of the difficulty inherent in the concepts of common condition and proof.PART ONE THE METHODISTS ol iv ßaXave'ui) ί^ρώτι τ ο λ λ ώ irepLppeoßevoi και ΐκλυόμ€νοι kiri τήρ ίττοχήν αύτοΰ Tapayiyovrai καΐ i t a τούτο ί χ ί τον ψυχρον àépa καταφ^χτγονσιν ( 2 3 8 ) . all physiology. so does the sick man's dehydrated body demand fluid. and anatomy.). The Skeptic standing at the end of a long development of thought. [195*]). The Methodist. academic skepticism (cf. the Skeptic does not doubt the possible existence of a cause. Skepticism. Skeptical philosophy clarines what in Methodism seems obscure and open to criticism. always inducing a condition opposite to the existing one. he does not deny the possibility. As every emotion necessarily extorts its own gratification by bringing about the opposite condition. even though it is determined by a difïerent law. 9 ff. Since 187 . It is this law. II 215 fï. The same is true of the concepts of the whole and the part (Hyp. inherent in the phenomena. His conduct is similar to that of others. In like manner. thereby absorbing the last Hellenic philosophy into medicine. which he remarked on in connection with the opinion of Sextus [403]. then. gives a Methodist discussion of the common conditions which is completely Skeptic in its argumentation). αλλ' ovSè τον ττρώτον Ύίννήσαντα Βίμίσωνα. Galen says: φαινομίνα^ yovv tlvàìv ili/at r a s κοινότητας ό σοφύτατοζ Θεσσαλοί. the Skepticism of the Methodists determines their peculiar middle position between Dogmatist and Empiricist medicine. In the Dogmatist schools of medicine. Dogmatic philosophy came to fruition. And just as for him the language of the Skeptical and Methodist schools are in complete agreement (239). Wellmann 403). behavior remained unchanged. for it is of no consequence to him. Thus the Methodist leaves unanswered the question whether the hidden can be apprehended or not. is really Skeptic. only the rationale of Methodism differs from that of the preceding schools. thereby. and the moist body dryness. Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften III [1933] 253 fï. but he has as yet no knowledge of it and it does not concern him (Hyp. but he beUeves knowledge of the cause to be impossible. T h u s he parallels the rule according to which the Skeptic acts and the principle by which the Methodist heals the sick.). the latter's statements become understandable and convincing (Galen I 190 K.). is able to defend himself against the accusations leveled at him by a recourse to Skeptical philosophy. II 97 fï. so he interprets the Ivha^L^ των φαινομένων Skeptically too: και TO τήΐ èyôei^ews ^νομα άδοξάστωϊ ΊΓαραλαμβάν€ΐ (sc.

The Hippocratic physicians had taught a medicine which was completely oriented toward the individual human being and what was right for him. and indeed of all Empiricism. They had renounced all generalized knowledge.. he was not letting himself be directed by a principle derived from his experience. but patients of the same age or the same constitution required the same treatment. This satisfied the demand that had been made. and it was inevitable that the old teaching. The teaching of Asclepiades rendered this escape impossible. For he is obliged to know and to treat individuals. This was decisive for the school's reputation. or from his intellect. This threatened the very foundations of Empiricist medicine. The problems were rendered more acute by the confrontation with Hippocratic skepticism and empiricism. loc. by denying that anything at all can be observed repeatedly in exactly the same way (Galen III 9. as Celsus says. 24 ff. for the history of Methodism was determined by the judgment of the Romans.. as in Hippocratic empiricism (Quellen und Studien. the Methodists were obliged to consider their own doctrine an interpretation of his system.D. at the same time. cit. Asclepiades. he turned the first aphorism of Hippocrates round and said: ή μίν τάχνη βραχΐϊα. as Galen puts it. They merely gave a Skeptical interpretation to Themison's common conditions (φαινομέναί yoöv elròv elvai r a s κοινοτηταί). how is he to know what he should do in the single case? The Dogmatists and Empiricists had taken individual conditions increasingly into account. for in Skepticism there was the same rejection of all general principles. which had been accepted as dogma. gradually found itself in opposition to the opinion of the schools. while the former derived all knowledge from experience. on the contrary. the uniqueness of the individual was strongly emphasized and thereby a new difficulty brought out for the physician and his work. although they tried to comprehend them in general terms. the same limitation to the here and now. [199*1). after all. Hippocrates too is interpreted as a Skeptic in Diogenes Laertius IX 73). ò Òè ßios μακροί i n s t e a d of ομίνβ'ίΟ^ βραχΰί. whose relationship to 189 . could claim with a good conscience. each person was so incomparable that the physician could only be guided in his actions by what he observed in the individual case {Quellen und Studien 256 [199*]). Dogmatists and Empiricists interpreted the Hippocratic writings. he freed the physician from that indefinite. At the same time. a general knowledge of them would therefore be possible.PART ONE THE METHODISTS Themison was the first to formulate the concept of the common conditions. No solution of the difficulties could possibly come from Dogmatism or Empiricism. There is only one essential difference between the Hippocratic and the Methodist solutions to the problem. each case suggested to the physician a suitable individual treatment. The latter claimed that logic is the constitutive element in knowledge and allotted only limited significance to experience. But why did they interpret them Skeptically? This was the time when Empiricists and Dogmatists were arguing over the question how it was possible to gain knowledge. in the first place. The 188 authority of Hippocrates added still more weight to the demand that the individual be considered absolutely unique.). IV. which is only feasible on the assumption that one can observe objects which are constant in themselves. on the other hand. while. accordingly. exaggerated the arguments against the possibility of basing knowledge on experience alone. If the physician acted on Skeptical principles and made the afflictions of the human body the law governing his treatment. The physician then went solely by the patient he was treating.κρή ( G a l e n ΠΙ 14. the master race. subjective criterion. it employed fewer drugs and because the regimen it prescribed gave greater consideration to customary activities or left them unchanged. the Methodist. but that it was also nothing but a modification of it. The Methodist was aware that his doctrine ran contrary to the Hippocratic. Skepticism offered a way out. 9 ff. If the same thing is never repeated. The Romans preferred Methodist medicine because. For in raising to a principle the Skeptics' law that necessity resides in the afflictions of the body. since all human beings are different. which allowed no criterion in medicine except the patient's subjective experience {αϊσοησίΐ τοϋ σώματος) . medicine was transformed in the mode of Hippocratic empiricism. The Hippocratic physician found treatment difficult because of the necessarily individualized character of knowledge and treatment. Hence. For them. that there was nothing simpler than treatment. or to see in him the root of their own doctrine. Age and constitution constantly necessitated a variation in treatment. and then applied to his patient. Methodism was more highly regarded in Rome than were Dogmatism and Empiricism. CONTEMPORARY AND LATER OPINIONS OF METHODISM In the first century A. η δι τkχvη μα. Themison's teacher. They presuppose that individuals are uniform as individuals and that.

Methodism was as justified in the second century in adapting itself to the educational ideal of the time as it had been in insisting on its originality in the first century A. and through this adjustment.). The medicine which the Romans themselves had recorded depended on few drugs. Diepgen. Gercke-Norden. Geschichte der Medizin. on the other hand. M. little value was attached to the Methodist system. 27 fï. Asclepiades himself owed part of his success to the circumstance that he prescribed only pleasant remedies and that he was willing to equate the easy with the true (Pliny. Methodist doctrine was sufficiently transformed to be able to persist in the new era. see in it one of the most important and most magnificent systems of ancient medicine (Haeser I 268. and he always puts these three schools in the very center of his discussion. Medical historians. 6 . Sprengel 28. the Methodist physicians with whom it is possible to have discussions. Diepgen III 48. Galen. C. reinstated etiology and physiology in m e d i c i n e . Vogel.).). I 303). 1609). A. This attitude met with condemnation as early as the second century A. Not even Galen doubts that the Methodist school is the most important school of physicians beside the Dogmatist and Empiricist schools. Rehm and K. 1906. h.. Geschichte der Medizin. 53.D. XXVI 7. 71). are unjust. the medicine of the period. Galen's accusations. From the outset. but ones which were supposed to act quickly and be as pleasant to take as possible. and the Methodist (Galen XIV 678 K. took over much of Asclepiades' practical medicine. This pleased the people of the first century A. archaism requires that people be better educated. Celsus 104. down to K. h. however. who expounded the doctrine in detail at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Soranus. cf. Methodism still counted. was required to accomplish the heretofore unattained if It was to find approval. Fuchs I 328.7 ..D. The Methodists conceded that they must adapt their doctrine to the new views. «. who as a strict archaist considers it effrontery when someone like Thessalos contradicts an aphorism of Hippocrates (Galen X 8 K. quoted in Meyer-Steineg. they refused strenuous and harshly disruptive treatment. because in many matters they have been converted to the truer view (Galen III 26. as we are told by Prosper Alpinus. cit. the body which was too full of fluid was relieved of the oppressive superfluity. Pagel-Sudhoff. «. too. they are unhistorical. for they demanded new things. and its ideas were the subject of discussion (cf. Thus. once more taking up the earlier intense concern with it {De medicina methodica libri XIII. P. he had restored Methodism to the norm. Pliny. 19 ff. 56). 75).. it was only for the sake of his education that the physician need be versed in these matters. Soranus. in his opinion. Neuburger. Stuttgart. In spite of these objections to the Methodist school. X X I X 6). it is true. b u t h e s a i d : τόϊ" μέν ovv φνσικον φΐρ'ίκοσμον Òk Tpòs χρηστομάθααν (CMG αχρηστον οντά wpòs το TÌXOS. Besides.PART ONE THE METHODISTS medicine was quite different from that of the Greeks. X X I X 6). But the Methodist school was also something new. the Empiricist. I V 4.). At the beginning of the Renaissance. it was consonant with their basic principle that the patient always be given what was bound to be pleasant in his particular condition: the dehydrated body was given fluids. Ρ 100 fi. op. and those who follow him are clearly. Just as the Greek model was forsaken in poetry. Soranus' version of Methodism was considered the standard version because it agreed with the spirit of the later centuries. Thessalos. through Themison. Berlin. 1915.) . 1933. II Heft 5*. 43. on the other hand. 92. the first Greek surgeon to come to Rome was hated for the brutal treatment he prescribed (Pliny. Methodism still had some influence on medical development (cf. who called himself the conqueror of all previous physicians (ίατρονίκη^. The Methodists were only speaking the language of their time when they boasted of revolutionizing medicine.). 191 . The Methodists. Less favorable judgments have been passed by the philologists.D. 1923. Einführung in die Geschichte der Medizin. Exakte Wissenschaften. just as in all matters men sought out paths of their own. like those of Hippocrates and Galen. and medicine is classified in this manner in the compendiums down to Isidore of Seville (Etymologiae IV 2). M. Aurelianus. Thus the pseudo-Galenic άσα-^ω-γΐ} admits three basic medical doctrines: the Dogmatist. wrote in the dedication of his book to Nero: ταραδ€δωκώ$ vkav alpeaiv καΧ ώΐ μόνην άληθη σνμφβρον δια το TOVS ΤΓpo'γefeστkpovs σνντήρησίν ττάνταί iarpovs μηΟέρ ιταραδονναι wpós re vyeias Kai νόσων άτΓαλλαγήί' (Galen Χ 8 Κ. and his works. were translated into Latin because of their factual significance. but they did not on that account relinquish any fundamental tenet of their system. its objective significance was never disputed. who deem it less important than the doctrines of the Dogmatists and Empiricists (Wellmann 397. however. 45 fï. h. only attacks the Methodists 190 of the first century. Since the nineteenth century Methodism has been only of historical interest. II 7. Even in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Even in the Middle Ages.

in the opinion of the Empiricists he had already taught the truth in almost all matters (fr. DG.). then.' Hippocrates too counts as an Empiricist (fr. Berlin.Iready in antiquity there were disputes as to whether the teaching of the Greek Empiricists. Heft 4. was Hellenistic. below. on the other hand. Empiricist. 43. contends that Akron of Agrigentum was the first Empiricist. 253-61 of the volume). Concerning the derivation from Timon (fr. cf. Celsus. or whether it could be traced back to an earlier time. Berlin: Julius Springer. and their derivation from Akron is a deliberate archaization to make the school appear older than that of the Logicians (fr. which takes its name from its principle. not from its founder. For Isidor of Seville.). cf. = Karl Deichgräber.). 1933. According to this view. words like Dogmatic. 19.). the Empiricist school and its teaching are only Hellenistic.). ' D G . Others think that Philinos was the first to separate the Empiricist school from the Logicians (fr. The school. like the school itself. 310 DG. pp." Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften und der Medizin. b. p. αύτηί. 5. In this translation. * θίλοντίΐ òi άτταρχαί^ίκ" ίαιτών τήν aîptinv îva ρ νρ^σβυτίρα τη^ Χο-γικη^ Άκρωνα τον 'AKpayavTivov φασιν άρ^ασθαι. Pliny likewise calls Akron of Agrigentum the first Empiricist (fr.EMPIRICISM A N D SKEPTICISM IN THE TEACHING OF T H E GREEK E M P I R I C I S T SCHOOL* . which he based on experience and experiment alone (fr. 7c DG. and that Philinos and Serapion had indeed propounded the doctrine earlier than the others.3 DG. 43. ftn. states that Serapion was the very first to declare that rational methods were of no concern to medicine. Sammlung der Fragmente und Darstellung der Lehre. 45-53 (pp. 7d .).^ Empirical medicine was certainly not first taught in the Hellenistic Empiricist school. Die griechische Empiriker schule. Aesculapius is the first Empiricist. 1 ff. 103 DG.). The Hippocratic writings already require that the * "Empirie und Skepsis in der Lehre der griechischen Empirikerschule. but later than he (p. 8 DC. then. 4 DG. 6. Band 3. A 195 . d DG. 6 DG. just as Apollo is the first Methodist and Hippocrates the first Lt^ician (fr. Skeptic have been capitalized when they seem to refer to definite schools rather than general concepts. 1930. 7a. Methodist. Empiricist medicine existed already in the fifth century before Christ.). According to these statements.).

15 ff. not of the permanent. since no experience of it is possible.. complete agreement between these two schools. even though the Empiricist school only originated in Hellenistic times. I l l . the Empiricists were justified in making Hippocrates an Empiricist. everything the physician has to know can be seen.1. below..* Again. * Cf. 14 DG. 17. ^ C M G (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum] I.^ Empedocles gave a philosophic justification of the requirement that one be guided by experience only. is the observation and recording of what may be seen often and occurring in like manner. e.* They alone refrained from judging hastily whether the hidden is unknowable or not. ftn. does not believe that the statement quoted is Empiricist. at least in principle. and in the manner of the Skeptics they learned from the phenomena whatever seemed useful. Philosophie der Griechen III.. 51. that is. below. DLZ 1931. But medicine needs no such hypotheses. what cannot be experienced can.). however.* In the Greek Empiricist school. p. Cf. p. the individual reaction of each patient to each foodstuff and each activity must be ascertained (51. All rational methods are consciously rejected. From Sextus' words it follows a t most that perhaps not all Empiricists advocated such a doctrine (cf. if not certainty. 226).). they limited themselves to the phenomena.17 ff. his opinion is determined by his particular concept of skepticism.22 ff.18 ff. Thus. Just as all Academicians manifestly (χροδήλωϊ) differ from the Skeptics in their judgment of good and evil {loc. DLZ [Deutsche Literaturzeitung] 1931. he designated the Methodist school of physicians as the only one the Skeptic might join (Hypotyposes I 236 if. The concept of experience is clearly influenced by Aristotle (cf. that only that which can be proved by experience be considered true.'s opinion barely touches the problems which are later clearly recognized) the opinion prevailed t h a t experience was concerned with the realm of the recurrent. This reaction can be ascertained. but something unique (according to 51. 274). loc. they perhaps distinguish themselves from the Skeptics in this too {loc. generally valid. There existed. 295. so the Methodist physician allowed the conditions he observed in the patient to point the way to be followed in treating him. Such a theory of experience corresponds to Hellenistic skepticism. και J S τι αφ' ίκάστου ίκάστψ σνμβ^σίται. be explained through hypotheses. He was motivated to this rejection of the Empiricists by the fact that they claimed that the invisible was unknowable. and his doctrine influenced the physicians. the Methodists even used words in the same way as the Skeptics (239— 40). To be sure.25 ff. 14 DG." But medicine has a standard: the individual reaction of the patient {41. which the Methodists did not dare to say (236).19 ff. [5]. At the ' One observes the fluids which are in the body. For this reason. Yet if Sextus does not consider the Empiricist school skeptical. therefore. even the causes of diseases (CMG I 1. 1117-18. empirical medicine existed earlier. in Hippocratic empiricism. from the Sicilian physicians influenced by Empedocles. But its Empiricist character is attested to elsewhere (fr. too. not the Empiricist. and that it lacked an objective. denied that the Empiricist school was skeptical.. 49. àyayKalop «cai Ιητρφ rtpi φύσίοί (ίδέΐίαι «οί ττάνν σιτουδάσαί. Here. 2 7 1 . s a y s {pp. the unique occurrence lies outside scientific knowledge. From many similar experiences it is then possible to determine how one should act in the future in similar circumstances. though it is not something permanent or recurrent. 24.g. empiricism as a concept is given a Hellenistic interpretation. though the distinction is concerned only with the problem of knowledge. eïwep τι μέλλΐΐ των δεόντων Troiijireip. p. the exposition of Empiricist theory in DO. it was merely a question of which Hippocratic writings one believed authentic. 531-32). 45. below). * Zeller. It is for this reason that the Empiricist school could be derived from Akron.). Metaphysics A I. which suited the Skeptic better than any other school of physicians.7 2 ) : " H e r e ( ί η a n c i e n t m e d i c i n e . at least a measure of assurance.). At one point Sextus says: if the younger Academicians consider all things to be unknowable. cit. Sextus Empiricus.. Experience brings.).^ Hellenistic empiricism. 1. since it is formulated in a conditional clause. Just as the Skeptic let himself be directed in his conduct by his emotional responses.). on the other hand.' Hellenistic Empiricism teaches that there is no knowledge of the invisible. 6 ri τί èffric Ανορωποί irpòs τά ferflió/iica τί και irivoßfya και δτι πρόΐ τά Αλλά ίττιττίδΐϋματα. it was the Methodist school. ftn.22 ff. 2 (5). one observes t h a t food produces in man similar fluids and that health and sickness are determined b y the resulting mixture.. which in DG. ώΐ eïatTat. not all Academicians held this view (Zeller. then. cit. experience had been the observation of every effect of every single factor on every individual. *Ci.. cit. p.PART TWO EMPIRICISM A N D S K E P T I C I S M physician rely on experience alone. 226). so do all Empiricists differ from the Methodists in their actions (cf. 291 ff. 1118-19. DG. it was admitted that »Cf. 36.). Empirical medicine is indeed not a phenomenon typical of the Hellenistic period. Furthermore. The physician is aware of the difficulty of treating isolated cases where there is no preceding experience (41. In Hippocratic empiricism. 103. 198). standard. and the Fragments.). fr. 196 197 . One should not think of Democritus.19 ff.. 297. Sextus apparently wants to make a similar distinction by means of the conditional form. instead. and it is therefore not possible to know the causes of disease (e. one determined how the individual behaves in relation to what he eats and drinks and does. it is true. especially pp. All orders given by the Methodist physician were based on what the patient felt (239). D G . Further. 1. Since only the unique occurrence can be apprehended.g. it is not possible to decide what should be done in the future from one's experience of the past.

cit. while the Academician admits statements of general validity. Karneades. Yet. he merely seeks to know something.3 2 L . και οί ίνιστάμΐνοι iràvTts ομοίων Òià róÒe. allows his actions to be determined only by reality as it is now. he must reject empiricist doctrine for the same reason. is thinking only of the influence of Pyrrhonist skepticism on the Empiricist school (p. That is." ^ (irepl Òi T^s σκίΤΓΤικήϊ ά γ ω γ ή ΐ ùiroTiurtiiws èjrì του ιταρόντος ήμ(ΐτ ίροΰμ^ν) ÌKÌÌVO trpofLiròvTts. Kai ob òei καιρού. 13). as an argument against Dogmatism. The Academy is also in error in that it affirms in direct opposition to Skepticism that judgment can be certain at least in questions of ethics (I 266 ff. 1 [5]. " DG. the Stoics. p . They do not believe in the possibility of positive statements. 499-550). 258). a l s o Problemata I V . but not to medicine. I t follows from t h e p r e c e d i n g s t a t e m e n t s t h a t these w o r d s a r e t o b e u n d e r stood a s I h a v e i n t e r p r e t e d t h e m . and this Academic form of the theory of experience was Hellenistic. 1117-18). others believe it cannot be found. Theoretical considerations as to the nature of man are well suited to the art of writing. then. Empiricist medicine was skeptical. also the definition. is affected by the Academy. Werke. whose t r u e s u c c e s s o r it is in t h e o r y a n d p r a c t i c e . àWà κατά το ρνν φαινόμίνον ήμΐν ίστορικώϊ airayykWoßfv mpl ίκάστον. as Sextus testifies. «οί τούτα ìnrevavTÌa σφίσιν ίωντοίσιν {ir. The Skeptics search for the truth (3). ά λ λ ' ôei ÌVÒVKÌÌUS δμοιόν kaTi.ΐΓίρ Χί-γομ^ν. knows nothing. however. Just as the Academy recognized a certain sureness of judgment in ethical questions. ή Sk ί-ητρικί] νυν τΐ καΐ αύτίκα ού το αυτό troiéei Kai ττροί τον αυτόν ύττίναντία iroikei. below.. it is not skeptical. cf. and the other Academicians. c o r r e s p o n d s t o classical s k e p t i c i s m . δτι {ώΰνατόν ίστι καβίστηκίη τι kv αύτρ σόφισμα -γίνίσθαι. '" It is "an active skepticism." tics form no school even though some individuals may tend toward the doctrine more than others (Zeller. the Empiricist school differs in both theoretical knowledge and practice from Skeptical philosophy. loc. but the determination to engage in constantly renewed investigation. ^^ ησσον νομίζω τγ Ίητρικί] τΐχν^ι irpotritKttv ή τρ -γραφική (ir. Its negative judgment is no less dogmatic than the positive doctrines of the Dogmatic schools. does not do the same things now and in the next moment. because in medicine there cannot possibly be any rigid tenets. δτι τό αυτό καΐ όμοίωϊ ττοκνμίνον νυν re καΐ ού νΰν οϋκ αν το iiirtvavTlov yévoiTO. For this reason. he is willing only to state his opinion on each matter as he understands it. cit. ) . can be detected in classical times. 1 .). some claim to have found the truth. nor in a convincing or reliable definition of good (Zeller.PART TWO EMPIRICISM A N D S K E P T I C I S M beginning of his work he declares that among philosophic investigators. ftn. 42*. 1931. because the sole criterion is how the patient feels whom he happens to be treating. and its actions are opposed to each other. For the Hippocratic empiricists teach that it is impossible to learn medicine quickly. 19. Thus the equivalence of the various opinions is advanced. and as it seems right to him at the moment (4). always striving to overcome itself in order to arrive through regulated experiences at a kind of conditional certitude" (Goethe." Action can only be directed by what the moment teaches."'^ Thus Sextus rejects every firm statement. and others.'^ The physician arrives at such a skeptical attitude because in every case he can rely only on the experience he gains at this moment and from this individual. the Empiricist school maintained the unknowable nature of at least all hidden things. and the Skeptic must not bind himself to any opinion. 6τι Vf pi οϋδίνίκ των Χ^χθησομίνων διαβφα. Skepticism is by no means resignation. on this point. are the ones who believe they have found the truth. and the principle of the uniqueness of the individual is formulated concisely (cf. 506). loc. "Everyone who has learnt to write in the one way in which it is taught understands everything connected with it. Weimar 1887 ff-. while the Methodist school is in agreement with it in both. 1. άρχαίηί Ίητρίκηί C M G Ι. 114 [108*]. T h e Pyrrhonist skep- " There is also agreement in details. however. t h e n .'" Empiricist medicine thus contradicted true skepticism as understood by Sextus. DLZ 1931. as Sextus says. become its opposite but is always perfectly uniform and completely independent of the circumstances of the moment. while the Academic Skeptics wrongfully dare to make pronouncements of general validity.* The Academy is in error: if only because it asserts that things are not knowable. the shaping of Empiricist theories. The Skeptic. If Sextus rejects Academic philosophy as not skeptical. which in the Hellenistic period is indeed the representative of skepticism. 's T h e M e t h o d i s t d o c t r i n e of m e d i c i n e (cf. or ever. That things are not understandable is taught by the schools of Kleltomachos.ιοίιμ(θα ώϊ οΰτωϊ ίχοντο! ιτάι/τωί καθά. In a n y case.). the Epicureans. 279 ff. ^^ Ιητρικήν où δυνατόν ίση ταχύ μοΒάν οιά róÌe. K n o w l e d g e of t h e h i d - 198 199 . the Empiricist school by dint of comparing many experiences acquired a knowledge which transcended the isolated phenomena and suggested rules for medical conduct. he is only willing to say how things appear to him at the moment. because that which is the same and is done in the same way cannot now. 5 1 .. I l l . as Dogmatic and therefore untrue. The meaning of skepticism is thus interpreted quite literally (cf. the Aristotelians. The true Skeptic. every doctrine. According to the doctrine of the Academy.7). Just as the Academy maintained the unknowable nature of all things. Medicine. Sextus is unwilling to assert any of his propositions positively. Cf. οΪορ ό το "γρίφων ίνα τρόπον μαθύν δν διοάσκονσι ττάντα ΐπίσταται. even if only incidentally. Those who are specially called Dogmatists. if empirical medicine existed before the Hellenistic Empiricists. And those who write can all write in the same manner. the skeptical attitude. τόπων των κατ' άνθρωττον c h . it acts differently in regard to the same individual. 41 V I 3 3 0 . 197). still others search for it {I 2). too.

27 DG. history. ch. the concept of experience is reduced to its component parts by philosophical analysis. Hellenistic medicine was dogmatic because the philosophy of the time was dogmatic. At first.) . If the Greeks have a dislike for the individual and a preference for the typical (Burckhardt. is the consequence of the nature of the human body. is he important for the Empiricist school (cf. rather. the Hippocratic physician is a skeptic by reason of his medical experience and knowledge. 4 above). as does Gorgias. ftn. the empiricist physician does not believe t h a t generally valid knowledge is possible. pains arise in both similar and dissimilar ways. a relativist from the conviction that man's knowledge is limited. Thus the Hippocratic empiricist is a relativist. knowledge of which they concede to be hypothetically possible (cf. which rejects as useless and therefore valueless much of what its opponents accept. possibly they do not even act in a manner contrary to constipating drugs.PART TWO EMPIRICISM AND SKEPTICISM The classical empiricist. it seems to me. ^* DG.). Zeller. it created a new medical skepticism based on philosophical principles. 196). not by geography. 1923. the possibility of scientific experience is proved. has described the rationale of Empiricist theory and the refutation of the Dogmatic doctrine clearly and comprehensively (pp. has the same medical approach as Sextus. Purgations do not always purge b u t work in various ways. The physician's art consists in knowing how much each body can tolerate. Only in this sense. If it is unden. In that it is empirical and skeptical the Hellenistic school recalls older systems. or another science. effects of the opposite kind arise. Griechische Kulturgesckichte III. One must tell oneself that everything which alters the present condition is a remedy . VI 336-42 L. But he is not. like Protagoras. this conversion of all things into their opposites. not because of his theory of experience. Berlin. > ^ This classical empiricism is medicine's own creation and. the empiricist physician only trusts experience. Even its pragmatism.}. a constantly new kind of procedure is required. But it is impossible to decide this question because one cannot tell from the extant material where the antithesis makes its first appearance (cf. Pains are caused by cold and by warmth and are removed by cold and by warmth. p. SB Beri. 43-15. Dogmatic doctrine is refuted by confronting opinion with opposing opinion and by exposing vicious circles. is philosophical. The skeptical empiricism of the classical physician is discovered in medical practice itself and is derived solely therefrom. is nevertheless important because from it philosophical ideas which would otherwise be lost can be recovered: in study- 200 201 . Other philosophers are only later interpreted as skeptics (cf. 1932. It is also indicative of its Hellenistic character t h a t the Empiricist school justifies skeptical medicine philosophically and refutes its opponent philosophically. indeed. though unoriginal. The edifice of medical science is constructed according to the categories of philosophy. but the problems are the same for both. and empirical skepticism was forgotten. then. 1 [5]. but for him experience does not give firm results nor general definitions of things. as it does for Empedocles. able to assimilate the material. It differs from that of the Academician. Remedies vary in effect. The difference in the solutions is no more than a difference in the concept of experience in Hippocratic and Hellenistic medicine. that things can only be apprehended as they appear to each individual observer. therefore. Philinos and Serapion founded the new school. Galens Schrift über die medizinische Erfahrung. But he does not doubt it.)." Finally. because the intellect judges the same things in various ways and therefore does not recognize the truth. R. by demonstrating regressus ad infinitum. 17-18). 428-33). the Hippocratic empiricists attribute no medical significance to the invisible. leaning on the Academy. 288 ff. and therefore from that of the Hellenistic Empiricist. its original contribution t o the development of Greek thought. the counter-balance is provided by medicine.'* The later Empiricist school did not adopt these medical doctrines.'^ While the skepticism of the Hellenistic physician is a philosophical conviction. Only when dogmatism was overcome in philosophy by skeptical reaction did an undogmatic. Philosophie der Griechen III. similarly. Everything has the effect peculiar to it as long as the body is able to assimilate the material taken into it. This countering effect of all remedies. Moreover. Walzer. is for the Methodists useless (fr. but what in the present circumstances constitutes a remedy can only be recognized in each individual case {De locis in homine. Democritus belongs to this group (cf. Beside Plato.). a constantly different intervention. skeptical medicine reappear. Der Geist der griechischen Wissenschaft. Yet the connection between medicine and philosophy was still so strong that medicine did not reach back to classical medical skepticism. The physician's personal experience was unable to prevail over philosophical conviction. or by pointing out the absurdity of assertions. from medicine. 8. because in health and disease nothing is steadfast. between a r t and accident. 494 ff. the extent of its ability to do so is determined by the body's own individual nature. Man is constantly changing. which the Empiricists call impossible. only the particular form of its doctrine is typically Hellenistic.^' " Gorgias and Protagoras are true skeptics. For him there are no rigid tenets in medicine because in the sphere of medical action anything can mean anything. ^' Hellenistic Empiricism. It has been contended that philosophy took over the antithesis between experience and knowledge. 281 ff-. Pohlenz. To cure him. and DG. or fail to prove it. 272 ff. Only occasionally does the mere fact that the phenomena contradict it. decide against an assertion.

one becomes acquainted with Academic skepticism. 301). demie skepticism of the school was untouched by the discussion of these so very different views. was the distinctive feature of skepticism. on a basic writing of classic empiricism. 8 above). pp. 6. 362. in the course of the controversy with the Methodists. Hönigswald.^ But the doctrine of this new skepticism contradicted that of the Empiricist school: the two were incompatible. which was different from their own. τ&νων τώμ κατ' αρθρωττον (fr. Medicine operates in a realm which admits unconditionally valid knowledge only to a limited degree (cf.).''' How is the tradition to be understood? As Hellenistic scientists the Empiricists interpreted classical medicine. The derivation of the Empiricist school from Timon must mean t h a t much of his skepticism passed over into the Academy. 316 DG. which was presumably aware of Timon's significance for the establishment of skepticism. Noctes AUicae XIV. the skepticism of Aenesidemos and his school can be traced back to two sources: to the doctrines of the Empiricist physicians and to the precedent of Pyrrhon and the new Academy.e.PART TWO EMPIRICISM AND SKEPTICISM From this skepticism of the Greek Empiricist school there finally emerged a new philosophical skepticism. 197-98 above) and the difference between the new Academy and Pyrrhonist skepticism. loc. the same can be assumed of many others. because he is concerned only with questions of epistemology. medicine and philosophy do interpenetrate. but clearly the ever increasing preoccupation with the old medical skepticism gradually eroded the transmitted teaching. even though both explain the diseases themselves along the same lines. the greater became the tension between the doctrine of the day and the still exemplary ancient theory. The rise of the new philosophical skepticism. Empiricist physicians weie the leaders of the new Pyrrhonism. the Methodist according to how the patient feels. they wrote the first commentaries on the Hippocratic works. cit.. 386.^^ Any physician who. 280): " T h e fact t h a t skepticism turned toward medicine and that medicine. . also Gellius.^ At first the Acaing it. Die Philosophie des Altertums. 1 [5]. There were empiricist and skeptic physicians before Serapion and Philinos. According to tradition. The rise of the Methodist school marked the triumph of ancient medical skepticism over the Hellenistic skepticism. ftn. and though it is probably not true of all. He likewise underestimates the agreement between the Methodist school and the Skeptics {cf..^^ The peculiarly Hellenistic character of the Greek Empiricist school. Even though individual Academicians fail to assert that things are unknowable. the point here is t h a t it is never possible to prove which of the many relevant circumstances has caused recovery): it is therefore not an exact science. remained an Empiricist was obliged at least to change the old Empiricist doctrine in decisive points. Berlin. they nevertheless believe in the persuasive power of the good. if they more and more attempted to limit the concept of experience to the individualism which even the school advocated. 507). .. this change was an attempt to solve the inner contradiction between the old and new doctrines. I l l . which the physician had merely taken over from the philosophers. 202 203 . To w h a t extent Empiricism also reflects Pyrrhonist skepticism. does not consist in the circumstance that its doctrines were first proclaimed in Hellenistic times. {310 ff. as it does with the Methodists.) describes how. conversely. the Empiricist concept of individual experience evolved. concerning the dogmatism of the Academy. and as such are expressly counted amongst the leaders of the Empiricist school. But the Empiricist school from the very beginning tends unmistakably toward skepticism. cu. 1924.. also points out the connection between medicine and skepticism. DG. Π Ι . cf.. The Empiricist treats according to his knowledge. " T h a t not all late Empiricists can have conceded that what cannot be experienced is unknowable I conclude from the statements of Sextus (cf. i. in spite of the confrontation with Hippocrates. that. as well as of the significance of Pyrrhon (cf. Lykos wrote a commentary on τ . 18-20): "As far as its historical origin is concerned. 531-33). I l l . If some of the Empiricist physicians no longer claimed that what cannot be experienced cannot be known. 19) says: Several of the spokesmen of the new Pyrrhonism were physicians. They read Hippocrates. 8 above) and overlooks the difference in matters of practice. *i Zeller contends (loc. which one must know in order to act and to live happily {Zeller. they cited the authority of Hippocrates against the authority of Herophilos and Erasistratos. " T h e need for interpretation of ancient works is already implied in the Empiricist concept Ίστορίη (DG. 2 [5]. in spite of Pyrrhonist skepticism." I have attempted to show why this contention is not tenable. At the close of the Hellenistic period there is generally speaking an increasing preoccupation with fifth century authors." R. then. 2 [5]. It preferred to have nothing to do with inquiries into the causes of disease and into the specific effects of each medicament. 1 [5]. though individuality is a consideration in treatment. cit. It is only the form of the Skeptical and Empiricist doctrines—and finally their reshaping through the confrontation with the classical^—that is Hellenistic " DG. it never becomes the starting point for it. This is an expression of the same distrust of human cognitive powers and the same limiting to the practically useful in relation to this particular science. I have tried to show that already in classical times medicine had produced a skepticism of its own. Yet here. though it is true that in Hellenism. loc. I l l . accepted skepticism is rooted in the structure of both. . which leaned on the views of physicians. constituted an infiltration of ancient Hippocratic thinking into philosophy. cit. ftn. The better the meaning of Hippocratic skepticism was understood. says {p. ™ Zeller (loc. raised to a general principle. Zeller minimizes the difference between the Skeptics and the Empiricist school in questions of cognition (cf. it is scarcely possible to determine. But both authors only speak of it in reference to Hellenistic medicine. Zeller. but similar to the new skeptical teachings. because such inquiries either fail to fulfil their purpose or are dispensable for the practical ends of medicine in view of the usefulness of drugs already established by experience.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful