Sinclair, Sir William J.: Semmelweis. His Life and his Doctrine (Manchester, 1909)
VI. Publication or "Die Aetiologie"
234 MARKUSOVSZKY midwifery that men placed in positions of grave responsibility could be found straining the truth by the publication of Prague statistics, and sinning against the clearest light by resisting evidence which all the world since then has accepted as overwhelming. Bruck, in commenting on this article of Breisky’s, says that he devotes space to it because it reflects the opinions of the vast majority of obstetric specialists at the times it was published (die überwiegende Anzahl der Fachmänner). The belief in authority with regard to the etiology of puerperal fever was at its zenith; the younger men swore by whatever the men of recognised importance pronounced as true, and naturally the great men who had committed themselves to an unfavourable opinion the Lehre delayed as long as possible to admit their error. Bruck thinks that Semmelweis would have done better for the spread of his doctrine if he had built for the eminent professors a golden bridge. We much question it. One thing certain is that they did not study his book, and for them Semmelweis remained “the apostle of cadaveric poison, the preacher of a one-sided creed.” Markusovszky. The criticism of the JEtiologie by Breisky of Prague was not such as to bring any satisfaction to Semmelweis or his friends and supporters. As emanating from Prague it could not be expected to be generous, but it was distinctly prejudiced and unfair. Within a few years the constant struggle for the spread of the Doctrine and the painful disappointments which it had brought him had now made Semmelweis bitter in spirit and irascible in temper; it had also produced a physical change, an appearance of weariness and of ageing rapidly, which was readily observed and commented on by all who knew him. Markusovszky took upon himself the task of replying to Breisky in the “Orvosi Hetilap,” and consequently Breisky remained practically unanswered. The powerful article of Markusovszky, written in the Hungarian
