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)

in a classical sense, but carelessnesses, mistakes through oversight and misspellings the more. For lack of graphological pathognomonic symptoms, I arrived at the conclusion that-—on the basis of the handwriting—it is unfounded to suspect Semmelweis to have had paralysis progressiva. c) The fractured arm This question shall only be dealt with briefly, treating the possibility of a spontaneous fracture that might be significant from the aspect of tabes. According to contemporaries and biographers Semmelweis broke his arm twice in 1851, the first time when he slipped in the swimming pool and the second time when he fell off a horse (Hegar 26, Fr. Bruck 12, Schürer von Waldheim 61). It came, therefore, as a surprise that as a result of the surgical examination of the exhumed bone (Hüttl, 20a and bj, as well as of the X-ray (Zsebők, 53a and b) and palaeopathological (Regöly-Mérei, 52a and b) examinations only one line of fracture could be revealed on the distalis part of the right humerus. The fracture is of a spiral character, there is no dislocatio ad longitudinem, the dislocatio ad axim has an angle of five degrees, the dislocatio ad peripheriam of six degrees (Hüttl 29a and b). Hence the anthropologist Bartucz, who examined the remains of Semmelweis's bones from antropological aspects, is mistaken in that he explicitly diagnosed dislocation (6). The ends of the fractures are connected by a very good callus. The latter as well as the spiral mechanism of the fracture definitely exclude the possiblity of a pathological (spontaneous) fracture. It is not possible to decide any more whether the two fractures took place at one and the same place or whether the bone was not fractured in one of ths cases. d) Premature ageing Schaffer (56, 57) found the premature ageing of Semmelweis peculiar. Since then a number of authors (Haranghy 25a and b, Gortvay and Zoltán 23, Benedek 7 etc.) were concerned with this question. The difference is, in fact, striking if his photo taken in 1860 is compared to later ones; the beard grown meantime does not account for the unusual change. The quick ageing is already remarkable in 1863, in 1864 he gives the semblance of a wizened old man with a stooping figure; the carnage of his left arm is also conspicuous, although this might have been due to the fact that both humeri were shorter than usual as compared to his figure and the length of the forearm bones: The photos referred to are to be found in Antall'

s publication (cited sub T), Semmelweis's premature ageing in an important fact for it started at the time his personality changed, his former fighting spirit broke down and he became over-excited and depressed (Gortvay and Zoltán 23). humerus radius ulna right side 323 mm 240 mm 260 mm left side 314 mm 239 mm 255 mm