Sinclair, Sir William J.: Semmelweis. His Life and his Doctrine (Manchester, 1909)
V. Life in Buda-Pesth
SILBERSCHMIDT 193 the “ Opinions,” there appeared a treatise or monograph entitled : “ Historical-critical Exposition of the Pathology of Puerperal Fever from the most ancient times up to our own.” The author was Dr. Silberschmidt, assistant to Scanzoni at Würzburg. In what may perhaps have been a ‘‘stop press” commentary on this work Semmelweis says* : “ Upon this work was bestowed the prize of the Faculty of Medicine of Würzberg. The author of this work speaks against my opinions as to the origin of puerperal fever, and since this work was awarded a prize (Preise gekrönt) by a Corporation of which Scanzoni is a member, and to him in fact in such matters is conceded a position of decisive influence, it is more than certain that we harboured an illusion when we hoped that Scanzoni had come over to our opinions. . . .” But let us hear what Silberschmidt has to say. He says: ‘‘Skoda and Semmelewis believed that the most important cause of puerperal fever is cadaveric poison . . . So even the first sentence proves that Dr. Silberschmidt presumes to pronounce judgment upon my views which he has not succeeded in understanding.” Semmelweis in reply explains the ‘‘three sources” of which the most active in the First Obstetric Clinic of Vienna was cadaveric poison. . . . ... If Dr. Silberschmidt is capable of forming an opinion of his own, and not merely an amanuensis who lets any one wheedle and flatter him into a course of action, let him thoroughly study this treatise and he will form other conclusions for himself. . . . Semmelweis goes on taking this impertinent understudy too seriously, doubtless quite correctly assuming that it is to Scanzoni he is replying. His opponent recalls what has been written against Semmelweis and passes over in silence the writings of his supporters, and the success of his method of prophylaxis in Vienna and Buda-Pesth. It is disingenuous work and in other respects such as a self-respecting man could not have * Aetiologie p. 403. N V
