Antall József szerk.: Orvostörténeti közlemények 89-91. (Budapest, 1980)

Vita - Nuland, Sherwin B.: The Enigma of Semmelweis — an Interpretation

kind of a 'friendship' their relationship had been. Hebra's periodical did not publish Semmelweis's lecture at the occasion of the famous Semmelweis debate in the Viennese Medical Association, instead, it published the attacks of the opposition, Lumpe's as well as Kiwisch's etc. After Lesky, Nuland presents a portrait of the 1853 members of the Professorial College of the Vienna School, remarking that out of the fifteen professors in the picture, nine had given active support to Semmelweis's teachings. Not true! At the intercession of Skoda, Semmelweis became a member of the Viennese Academy. Not true! How come that it does not occur to the author that had all these been facts, Semmelweis's 'outsider' stance would not hold, in fact, the Nuland theory would at once collapse. Furthermore, he interprets Semmelweis's appointment as docent also mistakenly, deeming it the 'final insult'

—a theory long cherished by romantic biographers. In the same vein, Nuland erroneously view Semmelweis's return to Budapest. We cannot blame the author for not understanding the peculiarities of the Bach-Regime, neither can we condemn him for describing the University of Pest as a worthless dump. But we do blame him for saying that Semmelweis's teachings 'began to fade' in Europe precisely at the time when they were discussed more than ever before or after. Finally the concluding part about Semmelweis's disease and death : Nuland takes care of this event by saying that attendents had beaten him to death, as was customary in those days. He regards the sepsis as fictitious invention and explains the commitment to the asylum with a progressive organic brain syndrome of several years standing; a diagnosis he develops in consultation with Elias Manuelidis, Professor of Neuropathology. According to them, Semmelweis suffered from Alzheimer''

s Presenile Dementia. This theory has also emerged in Hungary at the 1977 Round Table Pathological discussion; it is not impossible, although, what speaks against the confirmation of this theory is that the most important signs of Alzheimer's Disease, namely, the dementia and the focal signs (aphasia, apraxia, agnosia) are missing in Semmelweis. At any case, it is laudatory that after the longburgeoning foolishness in the novelistic literature, and the later 'tactful diagnoses' a more realistic hypothesis has emerged: an organic brain disease, which explains a great deal about Semmelweis's peculiar behavior in the last period. Finally, I must emphasize it again: nothwithstanding the enumerated objections, Dr. Nuland's article is a gain for the Semmelweis literature and if my voice carries as far as Yale University, I advise the author to read the Aetiology. István Benedek I consider it a substantial honor that Dr. István Benedek, who has studied the life of Ignác Semmelweis with such skill and devotion, should have reviewed my publication. It is, moreover, refreshing that I have been invited to reply to his critique, an invitation that speaks highly for the current atmosphere of objectivity and open-ness of the scholarly debate surrounding our subject. This has not always been true in the past. I wonder why it is that natives of all lands, seemingly without exception, express amazement to find that their national heroes are not only recognized, but often revered, in foreign countries as much as in their own. Why should