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

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

it be so difficult for Dr. Benedek to appreciate that there are non-Hungarianspeaking individuals all over the western world who have studied the life of Ignác Semmelweis in close detail because they feel, as I do, that his work represents the quintessence of the art of scientific logic and clinical reasoning? Why must he erroneously assume, with no evidence whatsoever, that we have not read the major works of the man I think of as "The Genius of Puerperal Fever", or that we require the intervention of a native son to stimulate our interest? I do not believe for a moment that it is ethnic arrogance, nor do I judge it to be an attempt to ridicule or denigrate the serious contributions that foreign scholars can make. Quite the contrary, I suspect that the explanation for this phenomenon is to be found in the native's unwarranted sense of humility and unnecessary provincialism, that does not allow him to grasp the enormous impact that this country's heroes have had on the world community and the reverence in which those heroes are held. There are Europeans who understand my country's history far better than I do; there are Americans who know much more about the Monarchy and its time than Dr. Benedek seems able to appreciate. Yes, there are a few minor errors in my study and for those I apologize: Semmelweis was not elected a member of the Academy, and there is no definite evidence that he physically participated in an active way in the revolutions of 1848. Beyond this, the careful reader will have to judge for himself whether my facts or those of Dr. Benedek are correct. "The Enigma of Semmelweis" documents all of its sources, and the factual material is easily verifiable by anyone who is intrigued enough by my thesis to evaluate the accuracy of the background upon which it is based. It is here, in the basic thesis, that I fear Dr. Benedek misunderstands me,, and this misunderstanding puts an unfortunate mottled filter on his review, through which my meaning cannot be seen. Nowhere do I describe Semmelweis as awkward, inferior or an outsider. This is exactly the point

—what is important is not how he appeared to the world, but how he appeared to himself. I believe that it was his self-concept that did him in, so much in contrast to the reality of what Dr. Benedek acurately describes as decisiveness, activity and outward self-assurance. I think my critic, although in other ways so generous, has missed that point. I have already taken Dr. Benedek's advice, and read much (not all

—Semmelweis' tortuous prose is too great a test for my sanity) of the Aetiologie before I wrote my paper. I hope he will take mine, and reread "The Enigma of Semmelweis" as a study of a man who is defeated not by the reality, but by his distorted conception of what that reality was. One other point should be clarified: Semmelweis learned his methods of clinical reasoning from his teachers, as we all do. It takes nothing away from the magnitude of his contribution to admit this. His unique genius lay in the way he used those methods he had learned at the Vienna School to reach, alone and unaided, a brilliant conclusion. To use an analogy, Ferenc Molnár did not invent the technique or literary form of the theatre. The innovative way in which he used that technique and that form to contribute to the art of play writing was due to his own particular talent. So it was also with Ignác Semmelweis. My gratitude goes to Dr. Benedek for his review. It is flattering that a scholar of his stature has found my work to be a stimulus to discussion, debate and what is obviously honest disagreement