Antall József szerk.: Orvostörténeti közlemények 89-91. (Budapest, 1980)
Vita - Nuland, Sherwin B.: The Enigma of Semmelweis — an Interpretation
about the Viennese Medical School (in English 1976), and Ferenc Gyorgyey's dissertation (Puerperal Fever, 1847-61, 1968). Nuland has read nothing by Semmelweis except the treatise about the difference between Semmelweis and the English doctors which had been tanslated into English by Ferenc Gyorgyey in 1968. He even failed to read the Aetiologie itself, even though the book had been released in English as early as in 1936. Thus, his incomplete or one-sided information explains several of his mistakes, but certainly not his basic premise which proposes the following: The tragic hero can be the son of an aristocrat, or a peasant, or a worker, fighting for his class, but a son of a grocer? Never! But Semmelweis was just that: a descendent of the traditionally non-heroic bourgeoisie. To top that, he did not know either Hungarian or German sufficiently to either write or speak these languages adequately. Nuland's adjectives for Semmelweis are: 'awkward', and 'clumsy' which means undeft, ungainly, trippingly shy, uncouth, unwiedly, lumbering doltish, just short of dimwitted. In addition, Nuland's Semmelweis is an 'outsider' not only in Vienna but also in Pest, an outsider who belongs nowhere, an inferior person, almost Jewish with his suspicious-sounding name, 'suspected of being a crypto-Jew'. At the glittering University of glorious Vienna (let's not forget that the author acquired his information about the University of Vienna from Erna Lesky), this dim fellow hardly dared open his mouth among the Rokitanskys, Skodas, and Hebras, who all spoke and wrote with ease and sophistication. So says Nuland. Anyone only superficially familiar with the problem knows that such a presentation is completely false. Semmelweis was neither awkward nor clumsy; he was agile, self-assured, decisive, active, self-conscious, later even a bit more than necessary. He had no inferiority complex in the glittering Viennese millieu on account of his origin, nationality or his mastery of the languages. By the same token, Rokitansky's father was a district clerk, Skoda's a locksmith, and Hebra's a commissary. None came from families of higher classes than that of a grocer from Buda. In addition, Hebra was Jewish and all three originated from Czech-Moravia —as did most members of the Viennese School —therefore, each spoke German as well or as poorly as Semmelweis did. Nuland justifiably focuses on these three as the most eminent representatives of the new Viennese School and, at the same time, were Semmelweis's most important patrons. While discussing them, however, the author immediately contradicts himself : in this part he says that Semmelweis was no outsider but a highly regarded member of the inner circle of the new Viennese School. At the influence of Lesky, Nuland goes as far as deeming Semmelweis's discovery as the collective result of the members of the Viennese School, ergo, Skoda and Rokitansky were 'the intellectual fathers of his discovery'. This erroneous view had already beeen refuted by us before and even Lesky admitted that she had gone too far on this issue. Still, the written word continues to live at Yale. Similarly prevails the legend of the great friendship: especially Hebra and Semmelweis were close friends, writes Nuland; they worked together and both participated in the 1848 Revolution. Not a word is true of this! They were not close friends, they never worked together and neither took part in the Revolution. If Nuland had paid more attention, he could have realized what
