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)
he behaved in an adequate manner. All this proves periodicity. It is however quite unimaginable that an ataxic patient afflicted with manifest tabes should be in a physical condition so as to struggle with six brawny keepers for a longer time. The disease-process, in view of its periodicity in line with suppurative inflammation is considerably reminiscent of the Bonhoeffer type reactive syndrome. IV. THE MIOSIS Sticker (70) found it peculiar that the autopsy reports mentioned miosis and thought that this pointed to syphilis. According to Haranghy (24, 25a and b ) from the pupillae of a corpse this conclusion cannot be drawn. Miosis can be due to different causes e.g. in addition to miosis due to a paralytic state (Horner-trias, tabes, paralysis) it can occur due to spastic causes (opium respectively morphine, beginning of meningitis etc). It is probable that Semmelweis was given opium as tranquillizer according to the medicinal treatment of those times. However, miosis can also occur in the case of a more serious arterio sclerosis due to the more rigid wall of the vessels of the iris. In absence of the Argyll-Robertson symptom (1809), miosis does not prove syphilis. V. RESULTS OF THE POST MORTEM AND THE NEUROHISTOLOGICAL EXAMINATION Between the autopsy report published by Scheuthauer in the Orvosi Hetilap in 18(35 (59) and the original text produced in the Rokitansky Institute—made known by Sticker (70), Schönbauer (58) and Haranghy (24, 25a and b)—there is no essential difference as regards the findings. In respect to the diagnosis there is a difference in so far that in the Pest version mention is also made of "atrophia cerebri cum hydrocephalo chronico," however, the atrophy of the frontal lobe and the slightly delated ventriculus cerebri are also described in the Rokitansky report (text in extenso see; 25 and/or 50). It is by no means an easy task to evaluate the autopsy report and the neurohistological examination performed by Meynert (40), for the sense of a part of the then used termini technici has changed since (e.g. degeneratio grisea), and, besides, a number of symptoms considered pathognomonic today were not known at that time. For this reason I studied works on pathological anatomy and pathological histology published in the second half of the 19th century in order to get acquainted with the conception and interpretation of that time. The autopsy report is rather incomplete. For example, it does not contain anything about the state of the vessels and of the osseous system, except the
