Antall József szerk.: Orvostörténeti közlemények 89-91. (Budapest, 1980)
Vita - Nuland, Sherwin B.: The Enigma of Semmelweis — an Interpretation
A DISCUSSION* JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF MEDICINE AND ALLIED SCIENCES — 1979 Vol. 34, No. 3 Sherwin B. Nuland: The Enigma of Semmelweis — an Interpretation pp. 255—272 The July 1979 issue of the Journal of the History of Medicine printed an article penned by Sherwin B. Nuland, a physician at the Department of Surgery at Yale University, entitled, The Enigma of Semmelweis — an Interpretation. It rarely happens that the scientific press of the field abroad contributes —with genuinely objective intentions —to the complex problems surrounding the life of Semmelweis, his work, and his significance, a completely familiar subject to us. This unique occurrence is most likely due to the contribution of Ferenc Gyorgyey, who is working with medical history at Yale, and apparently has informed the author about the available Hungarian sources. The article had originally been read as a lecture at Yale in January, 1978, and therefore it must have been prepared in 1977. With good instincts, Nuland begins with the often noticed similarity between the Semmelweis destiny and the Greek tragedies of fate, by remarking incisively that in this case we are not dealing with an Aeschyloeian but rather a Sophoclean tragedy. According to Nuland, the hero's tragic fall was not caused by godly, outside forces. Instead, he had carried his fate within; in fact, he himself had been responsible for his own downfall. In the hundred-year-old Semmelweis literature this analogy has surfaced only in its last phase, i. e. most * I. Benedek's review translated into english by F. Györgyey recently, therefore the author could not have read it. Consequently, not only the entire composition —the Sophoclean image —but also the basic premise must be regarded as original. What Nuland provides on sixteen pages is a brief summary of events which are well known in Hungary; it reveals no new information for us, but for the uninformed non-Hungarians it indeed gives an insight. Therefore, one should greet the publication with great pleasure. At the same time, we must comment on the omission of the Hungarian medical historians, i. e. the fact that materials of the Semmelweis research are made available only fragmentarily for interested people abroad. Such omission, of course, results in the continuous survival of erroneous views, moreover, it gives birth to additional misconceptions. When, in the following pages, I shall point out some of these mistakes, I do not intend to criticize Nuland, who, in spite of his errors, warrants and deserves our recognition and gratitude. I only aim at teaching a lesson to our own Semmelweis scholars; showing them how wary we all should be of misinformation, of the 'liberal' handling of unreliable data or opinions, and of leaving credibility to statements that deserve no credibility at all. We certainly cannot expect a surgeon at Yale University to possess a realistic view of the Monarchy, the contemporary relationship between Vienna and Budapest, or the complex political situation of the years between 1848-50, if we do not enlighten him satisfactorily. Basically, what we can blame Nuland for is only that he failed to make a more conscientious effort to familiarize himself with the historical background pertaining to his subject. By and large, he worked from three basic sources: Gortvay and Zoltan's monograph, (in English in 1968), Erna Lesky 's book
