Antall József szerk.: Orvostörténeti közlemények 55-56. (Budapest, 1970)

TANULMÁNYOK - Regöly-Mérei, Gyula: The Pathological Reconstruction of Semmelweis's Disease on the Basis of the Catamnestic Analysis and Palaeopathological Examination (angol nyelvű közlemény)

writings of Semmelweis his moral testament, and Sigerist (68) also shares this opinion. According to K. Schaffer : "Semmelweis seelische Konstitution verrät sich in seinen Offenen Briefen", and then: "In diesen Schriften kam eine grundlegende Eigenschaft des schizoiden Temperament zum Ausdruck, die seelische Überempfindlichkeit, die Hyperaesthesie", (57). Gortvay and Zoltán wrote that for Semmelweis "there was nothing left but to tell the truth to the face of even the most important persons of his age" (23). Although it was not uncommon to use an extreme tone in debates at that time, it is incontrovertible that by the years the Open Letters were written the personality of Semmelweis had already changed. This phase of his life is characterized by withdrawing into himself, seclusiveness and nervous tension (Gortvay and Zoltán, 23). All these symptoms are in connection with the fact that his theories were turned down. His struggles became more and more fierce. However, all these symptoms cannot be attributed to pathological changes, as it appears from the opinions of Schaffer and Nyirő cited above. 3, The time up to the middle of July 1865 The above period is one of the most critical and decisive phases when it comes to form an opinion on Semmelweis's mental state. Sinclair for example, wrote the following (69) : "He might have been a royal lunatic concerning whom no man take the initiative." The expression "royal lunatic" is not merely a flower of speach. The disintegration of personality is, in fact, a very slow process. According to Sinclair Semmelweis was afflicted with insanity since 1862, R. Major considers the border line the year 1864 (38). Interviewed by the Magyar Hírlap (Hungarian Journal) on October 2nd 1906, that is many years after the death of her husband, Mrs. Semmelweis declared : "Baron Rokitansky dissected my husband and established that he suffered from a neurosis on his spine for four years, a fact his immediate relatives were not aware of." I. Benedek (7) is quite right when he points out that there is a contradiction in the interview regarding the date, for Mrs. Semmelweis mentions later that she remarked pathological symptoms of the nervous system on July 13th 1865 for the first time. The contradiction may be due to different causes. Maybe Rokitansky wanted to comfort the widow, but it is also possible that Mrs. Semmelweis misrecollected the events after so many years. Those who maintain the view that Semmelweis had taboparalysis might not exclude the possibility that four years earlier the signs of tabes and in the summer of 1865 the symptoms of incipient paralysis manifested themselves. There are lighter cases of tabes and a person afflicted with paralysis can keep up his creative faculty for a long time. The fact that in the case of Semmelweis no serious pathological consequences manifested themselves does not exclude the possibility that he was afflicted with these diseases. For this reason I consider it necessary to deal with