Vilém Dušan Lambl in the Imperial University of Kharkiv (Charkov) (1861–1871): biography outlines

Summary

This article focuses on the biography of the famous Czech pathologist Dušan Lambl (1824–95), especially during his period of life in Kharkiv, Sloboda Ukraine (part of the Russian Empire). At the end of the 1850s, pursued by the authorities of the Austrian Empire as a politically compromised person (being a Czech patriot and slavophile, he took an active part in the so-called ‘Spring of Nations’ in 1848), Dušan Lambl was forced to seek refuge in the Russian Empire. He put forward his candidacy for the post of professor in the department of anatomy at the School of Medicine of Kharkiv University and was selected for this position. Being a professor of anatomy, Dušan Lambl also actively developed other disciplines at the School of Medicine, particularly pathological anatomy and histology. Therefore, when in 1867 the departments of pathological anatomy and histology were established, Lambl was invited to become the head of any of them. Having chosen the former, Dušan Lambl became the head of the first department of pathological anatomy in Sloboda Ukraine. Heading this department until 1871, Dušan Lambl was able to raise the level of teaching of pathological anatomy at Kharkiv University to that of the best universities in Europe. This article considers the memoirs of Dušan Lambl`s life in Kharkiv, left by his contemporaries. It focuses on information about his social activities, relations with colleagues and friends, and his work as a teacher and medical specialist.

Keywords:

Dušan Lambl – biography – pathological anatomy – history of medicine – medical profession

A residence of Vilém Dušan Lambl in Kharkiv (at that time Sloboda Ukraine, part of the Russian Empire) had a noticeable impact on the scientific life of the city and contributed to a large leap in the development of medical education at the local university, where he worked for 10 years (1861–71). Acquiring this Professor as a member of its academic staff, the School of Medicine of the University of Kharkiv was finally able to realize its long-standing plan – the opening of the Department of Pathological Anatomy. In addition, the rapid development of such a young science at the time, histology, at the University of Kharkiv is also attributable to Dušan Lambl, as the Department of Histology was established with his active assistance. Over ten years of working in Kharkiv (1861–71), Dušan Lambl conducted many classes and lectures in various subjects in the departments of Anatomy, Histology, Pathological Anatomy, General Pathology and faculty clinics. Additionally, he actively participated in the academic life of the university and the city. Twice, he was sent as a representative of the University of Kharkiv to the World Exhibition (Expo 1862 in London and Expo 1867 in Paris). He tried to make changes to the pedagogical approach in the university and presented many reports on teaching issues. He was an active member of the Kharkiv Medical Society and even headed this institution for several years. He was also often invited as an expert on medical trials. However, as a prolific doctor and educator, Dušan Lambl was not only interested in medical science. He was an artistic person with a delicate sense of humour, a great love for his country and an insatiable passion for Slavic nations: their past, present and future. The life story of Dušan Lambl can serve as an excellent illustration of the devotion to own profession and constant optimism, which allowed this physician to proudly muster through all of the hardships of his fate.

Information about Dušan Lambl’s time in Ukraine is preserved in sporadic archival data as well as in a small number of publications left by his friends and students. The most informative of them are the works of Mitrofan Popov, who at the end of the 19^th century collected many documents and evidence about Lambl (many of which are inaccessible to modern researchers) and published them in books and papers that have long become bibliographic rarities. No less interesting are the memoirs of Anatoly Koni, who befriended Lambl in Kharkiv. His testimonies have more rarely attracted the attention of Lambl’s biographers. These and many other sources form the basis of this publication.

BEFORE KHARKIV

Dušan Lambl was born on 5 December 1824 in Bohemia (at that time, the Austrian Empire, now the Czech Republic) in the tiny town of Letiny near the city of Plzeň (1). His father, František Lambl, worked as a manager (správеc) of Count Schonborn and maintained a large family of eight children: four sons and four daughters. Each of the Lambl brothers became famous in their country: František Sudimir became a successful economic manager and collector of antiquities for the archaeological department of the Czech Museum; Karel Milan became an organizer and teacher of agro-industrial education; and the names of Vilém Dušan and Jan Křtitel (also known as Jan Baptista) were known in scientific circles far beyond the borders of the Austrian Empire. Three out of four of the Lambl sisters (Lamblová, according to Czech tradition for female surnames) remained unmarried and, in accordance with the customs of that time, kept the households of their brothers: Marie Lamblová worked as the housekeeper of Karel in Croatia; Barbora Lamblová, in addition to working for her brothers, also worked as a teacher in the Women’s Production Association; Eliška Lamblová first managed the household of her brothers Karel and Jan in Libverda and then moved to Kharkiv with Vilém Dušan. The only exception was the youngest of the sisters, Anna Lamblová, who was married and took her husband’s name – Cardová. She had an active social life and became well-known as an organizer of the women’s emancipation movement (2).

Dušan Lambl started his education in Plzeň, under the supervision of his father, but after his death in 1841, the eldest of the Lambl brothers, František Sudimir, took over his responsibility for maintaining the family. Under his patronage, the younger brothers started to study in Prague (2).

In 1843, Dušan Lambl started his education at the School of Medicine of Charles-Ferdinand University (University of Prague, now known as Charles University in Prague). In his early student years, he became famous as a writer and journalist. Having great interest in Slavic ethnology, he spent a lot of time studying their traditions and customs. During his hiking trips to Czech, Slovakia, Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, Dušan Lambl took many notes on his observations of Slavic ethnography and then published them in Czech newspapers and journals, illustrating his articles with impressive drawings. In 1846, all his previous notes and articles were collectively published in the monograph “Evropa v ohledu národopisném” (Europe from the ethnographic view) (3).

In 1848, during the so-called “Spring of Nations”, Dušan Lambl took an active part in the students’ revolutionary movement. He was elected as a headman of the “Slavia brotherhood” and worked as a secretary of the Preparatory Committee of the Prague Slavic Congress. As an expert on South Slavic culture and language, Dušan Lambl was sent to the Croatian Parliament (“Sabor”) in Zagreb, where he was almost arrested due to the persecution of the revolutionary activists started by the Austrian authorities. Thereby, Dušan Lambl moved from Zagreb to Dubrovnik, where he lived for some time, forsaking politics and writing ethnographic notes about the Slavs of Croatia and Montenegro (2).

In 1849, Dušan Lambl graduated from the university and began to work at the children’s hospital of Josef Löschner, and he also gained the position of assistant to the famous Czech pathologist Professor Václav Treitz at the Institute of Pathological Anatomy at the University of Prague. From that time forward, no longer stopping to taking notes on natural science and ethnology, he became more interested in medical science. He published a number of valuable articles on normal and pathological anatomy, including a description of the circular fibres that he discovered in the ciliary muscle (4).

In 1856, Dušan Lambl received an invitation to give lectures on histopathology and pathology of malignant tumours as an Associate Professor (privatdocent) at the University of Prague. In addition, he started private courses on normal anatomy and pathological histology. Dušan Lambl’s rich linguistic knowledge allowed him to teach the material in various languages: English, German, French, Russian and Polish. This drew many foreign students to his lectures, including postgraduates from Kharkiv, who were visiting Europe to take classes from leading specialists in their field of research (2).

In 1856, Dušan Lambl described the formations on the aortic valve, later named after him as “Lambl’s excrescences” (5) (they are found along the edges of the valve cusps and are small papillary projections on the surface of the endocardium, which, when torn off, can lead to embolization of peripheral vessels). He also authored a paper on the first method for diagnosing bladder cancer by analysing the cellular composition (cytology) of urine (6). While working at the children’s hospital, Dušan Lambl described the Giardia microorganism in the faeces of a five-year-old patient. He called it “Cercomonas intestinalis” (7). Subsequently, this microorganism was named Lamblia intestinalis (1888) (in 1915, it was renamed to Giardia lamblia), and the disease that it causes was named Lambliasis, in honour of its discoverer (now known as Giardiasis). The glorification of Dušan Lambl spread so widely throughout Western Europe that the famous German scientist Arnold Förster suggested placing his name among the historical figures of medical science (4).

In virtue of his high-quality lectures and scientific activity, Dušan Lambl raised the profile of the School of Medicine of the University of Prague to the international level. In 1859, when Professor Václav Treitz retired, everyone expected his young and promising assistant Lambl to take his place. However, this also drew the attention of the authorities to Dušan Lambl, which led them to take a closer look at his persona by reviewing his “revolutionary” files from the archive. Despite the fact that Lambl had not engaged in political activities for ten years and had devoted himself exclusively to science and medical practice (in the Czech archives, there is an entry about Dušan Lambl appearing on the list of politically compromised individuals: “In recent times, his behavior has given rise to no worry. He concerns only with his professional business, and is also careful in his communication.”) (8), his participation in the national movement was not forgotten. For the authorities of the Austrian Empire, it was unacceptable that a person with such a past could work at the university and influence the younger generation. Therefore, in the office of the governor of Prague, Dušan Lambl was informed that, although his scientific contribution was highly appreciated, he could not be allowed to educate students. Moreover, his very stay in Austria was no longer desired, and if he would not leave the country, he would be arrested.

These circumstances forced the brilliant Czech scientist to seek refuge in other countries, and out of all of the job offers he received, he chose Kharkiv, where the Department of Anatomy had a vacancy. In 1860, Dušan Lambl submitted his candidacy for the faculty search and was almost without a dissenting voice (21 of 24 votes) selected by the Council of the University of Kharkiv (Fig. 1) to be a Professor of the Department of Anatomy (2; 9; 10). In 1861, Vilém Dušan Lambl arrived in Kharkiv. To comply with Russian traditions, he dropped one of his names (Vilém) and took “Fedorovich” as his patronymic, thus becoming Dušan Fedorovich Lambl.

CZECH PROFESSOR IN KHARKIV

Dušan Lambl headed the Department of Anatomy at the School of Medicine of University of Kharkiv and taught normal and pathological anatomy from 1861 to 1867. Prior to his arrival, the course of pathological anatomy at the University of Kharkiv consisted of only 10-12 lectures during one academic year. The Czech Professor brought the teaching of this discipline to a very new level. His systematic course on pathological anatomy was so extended that it did not fit into the previous curriculum and had to be divided into two academic years. For his lectures, Professor Lambl used the latest sources and his own notes (many of his colleagues stuck to old textbooks), and he even tapped into his drawing talent to sketch all of the pathological processes on the blackboard with crayons (4).

With his talent for drawing, Lambl also illustrated his lectures on histology. At the end of each lecture, he typically showed students microscopic slides that were usually prepared right there under their gaze. Then, Lambl would often invite students one by one to the microscope and ask them to describe what they saw through the eyepiece: cell shapes, their contents, relative position, etc. If the student could not find words to describe what he saw, the professor suggested that he depict everything on paper, including artefacts. It often happened that the time allotted for the lecture was not enough to demonstrate all of the planned histopathological slides. In that case, they all moved from the lecture hall to the professor’s office, where everyone could study the sample under a microscope carefully and without haste, receiving patient explanations from the professor (4). In addition, Lambl devoted a considerable amount of time to familiarizing his students with the construction of microscopes. He explained the basics of dioptrics, talked about the differences between microscopes of various manufacturers and pointed out the advantages or disadvantages of specific models. He himself preferred microscopes produced by Oberheuser and Amici (4).

Professor Lambl’s lectures became so popular that they were attended not only by university students but also by experienced doctors from Kharkiv and other cities. In 1861, students started to promote the idea of publishing Professor Lambl’s lectures on pathological anatomy as a textbook. The Professor agreed with the students’ argument that errors in the notes taken by students during his lectures could distort the information presented. He took responsibility for correcting the notes that students J. Kremyansky and N. Afanasyev made on his lectures and illustrated them with his own drawings. Soon, this joint work of the teacher and his students, resulting in four sections of his course on pathological anatomy, was published in lithographic prints (11-14). Other sections that were not included in the publication were distributed among students in handwritten form (4).

In 1867, the Department of Pathological Anatomy was established at the School of Medicine of the University of Kharkiv, and Dušan Lambl became its first head. His daily routine can be reconstructed to some extent based on his letter to the Dean of the School of Medicine (8 April 1867), in which he transmitted his response to the resident Kostenko’s request to have two autopsies performed at 9 am in the clinic’s chapel: “Every day, from twelve to three o’clock, I am in the anatomical theatre. I am ready to conduct an autopsy on even two bodies tomorrow at this time from twelve to two o’clock, no matter how burdensome it would be for me to give my lecture after two autopsies. What can I do? Two corpses in one day – it rarely happens. Not at nine o’clock, nor in the chapel will I conduct any autopsies” (4). As seen from this letter, Professor Lambl did not like to work in the mornings, and every day before the lecture, he spent three hours in the anatomical theatre, where he was engaged in scientific work and preparation for the lecture.

AUTOPSIES

Professor Lambl’s technique for conducting autopsies approached perfection. “Lambl was really an artist at autopsies”, his ex-student Mitrofan Popov recalled, “and he performed them with passion, love and curiosity” (4). “So far, the only goal for cutting a cadaver was an as much as possible objective, complete and accurate determination of all of the pathological changes found in the body”, Dušan Lambl used to say, but, as a person of a refined character, he saw something more in the work of the pathologist and compared it with the opera: “An autopsy is like an overture, and the opera itself comes after and consists of 3, 4, 5 acts, depending on the plot. Here comes the fresh preparations of samples for demonstration, injecting them, microscopic and chemical studies, making drawings of wonderful objects, preparing them for storage in the office, revising and improving the protocol, and, finally, critique and review of everything that has to be presented in the lecture after dissection. In this finale of our opera, the important motifs of the overture are briefly repeated, but, most importantly, all of the conclusions of the study are gathered into one harmonious whole, from which students compose their notes, and then the curtain drops” (4).

Starting clinical autopsies, Professor Lambl was always deliberately unaware of the diagnosis of the deceased in order to evade preliminary judgements and to search for the cause of death on his own. He thought that “If the failure of medical practice sometimes makes patients silent, the difference of pathological anatomy is that it makes the dead speak” (4).

Professor Lambl’s attitude towards his work was shared by his students: All of them were aware of the importance of the knowledge that they could learn during any autopsy, so they considered it a crime to miss at least one of them. Therefore, the dissection room was always crowded with students when the Professor was at work (4).

GETTING INFECTED DURING AUTOPSIES: MEMORIES OF MITROFAN POPOV

The profession of a pathologist even today is fraught with many dangers that are associated with autopsies of patients who have died of infectious diseases. In the 19^th century, the chance of contracting infection from a corpse was even higher. During the practice of Professor Lambl, there were probably a lot of cases like that, but at least two that happened in Kharkiv are known for certain: one in 1867 and one in 1871. The first of these incidents is preserved in the memoir of prosector (dissector) Mitrofan Popov. On that day, Lambl scratched his finger but forgot about it and proceeded to dissect the body infected with pyaemia, which arrived from the obstetric faculty clinic. During the autopsy, Professor Lambl felt a burning sensation in his scratched finger. He immediately took measures to clean his hands and ordered that the autopsy be continued by his assistant M. Popov, who soon also scratched himself. “More so, anatomical attendant Dmitry, who was experienced in stitching and cleaning corpses, had the misfortune to pierce himself with a needle and with bad consequences as well” (4). Thus, all three workers of the anatomical theatre were infected and stayed bedridden for at least two months. “Thank God that we all got off only with numerous, painful boils in various parts of the body” (4), – recalled Popov. It was lucky indeed since mortality from pyaemia was extremely high until the discovery of antibiotics. A similar situation happened with one of Mitrofan Popov’s predecessors, prosector Peter Dudarev, but he was not as lucky: in 1849, he cut his finger before dissection and consequently died as a result of blood poisoning (15).

TRUTH-SEEKING AND CONFLICTS WITH COLLEAGUES

Dušan Lambl was a direct person who tried to achieve simplicity and transparency in his relations with others. He tried to act fairly and not out of self-interest, to be guided by logic and not by impulses. This often forced him to go against established rules or a common opinion, which made his relationship with colleagues more complicated. Lambl did not like to be a part of any intrigue, but, because of his fairness and sometimes picky nature, he often found himself at the centre of scandals. However, even when criticizing his colleagues or students, Lambl always sought to achieve justice, not punishment.

In the first year of his work at the University of Kharkiv, Dušan Lambl opposed one of the long-established rules, which he considered an absurd formality. The fact was that, if some students felt unable to overcome their aversion to dead bodies and autopsies, they could ask for transfer to other faculties. In this regard, a rule was developed, according to which a student had to prove to the professor his aversion to receive official permission to be transferred. However, those who could not cope with the challenging studies at the School of Medicine began to use this loophole: so as not to be expelled from the university but rather to be transferred, they simulated their disgust for corpses. Lambl insisted that disgust is an internal feeling that is impossible to prove and therefore recommended the School of Medicine management to transfer students without this formality (4).

In March 1867, Professor Lambl had a conflict with Professor Ludwig Marowsky, the director of the therapeutic faculty clinic. Professor Lambl refused to give pathologic specimens to Professor Marowsky for histological research, so Marowsky pointed out the fact that the deceased patient’s body was delivered to the university from his clinic and, therefore, belonged exclusively to him. “This was all uttered and repeated by Mr. Marowsky with such a sharp cry and a threatening tone,” said Lambl later, “that I had never heard such a voice in the university building” (4). However, this case was only a cause for conflict. Its true reason was Marowsky’s hostile attitude towards Lambl, who, as a clinical pathologist, sometimes made post-mortal diagnoses that were not quite suitable for the doctor.

A few days later, the Professors exchanged angry letters, and, as a result, the conflict was brought to hearing at a meeting of members of the School of Medicine (4). In his speech to the Council, Professor Marowsky proposed to significantly limit the rights of pathologists for clinical specimens and make pathologists fully accountable to doctors of the clinic. Professor Lambl replied to this that “he had never experienced such terrorism” (4) from university colleagues, and he suggested the members of the Council recognize it as appropriate to stick to previously established rules. “From 1850 to the present day, I have already performed several thousand autopsies in the presence of clinicians. ...They are as follows: Halla, Löschner, Sakh, Bamberger, Hamernik, Cejka, Spielmann, Fischel, Waller, Pitha, Artl, Seifert, also in Kharkiv gentlemen Albreht, Han, Demonsi, Grube and Lazarevich. During the autopsies, all of these gentlemen listened to the protocol and anatomical definition of the disease in silence, humbly and without comments.” (4) – Dušan Lambl spoke to the Council. Karl Demonsi, the dean of the School of Medicine, who previously was a lecturer of pathological anatomy and knew first-hand about the difficulties and importance of this discipline at the University of Kharkiv, supported Professor Lambl (15, 4). He personally wrote in the protocol of the meeting: “Clinical autopsies should be carried out on the basis of § 83 of the Clinical Regulations until they are changed by the legal order” (4).

Professor Marowsky was indignant about the resolution of the issue, and soon, violating the rules, he conducted an autopsy himself in the clinic’s chapel, justifying it by pointing to Professor Lambl’s refusal to perform his duties. At the same time, Professor Lambl filed a report to the university Council asking whether the university recognized Professor Marowsky as a competent teacher and clinician. However, the Council had not even started to consider Lambl’s question when another complaint about Professor Marowsky was received from his clinic’s staff. They filed a list of cases in which their director exceeded his authority. Among the cases, there was, in particular, an informal charging of money from patients for treatment and spending it for his personal needs. During that year, Professor Marowsky justified his actions with new adjustments to the “Clinical Regulations”, but he never showed the text of the new rules to his subordinates. However, because of the Professors’ quarrel, the text of the “Clinical Regulations” was brought to the clinic and became available for medical personnel. They could not find any confirmation of their supervisor’s words in the document, and so it prompted them to report the violations of rules. The consideration of the case of abuse of authority as well as the statement by Professor Lambl about the incompetence of Professor Marowsky led to his dismissal from the university (4). Thus, the conflict between the two colleagues revealed deeper problems and led to completely unexpected consequences.

Clashes repeatedly occurred between Dušan Lambl and his “competitor”, professor of histology Nikanor Chrzonszczewsky. In 1864, his candidacy was proposed by the famous and very influential Russian surgeon Nikolay Pirogov for the post of a teacher of pathological anatomy, which was already held by Lambl. The faculty defended the right of their professor for this subject and offered Chrzonszczewsky a post of assistant professor of general pathology and hygiene. In 1867, when the Department of Histology was established, this discipline, previously presided over by Lambl, was transferred to Chrzonszczewsky. However, since histology was an integral part of pathological anatomy, Lambl continued to actively engage in it. Thus, there was some competition between Lambl and the new professor of histology, and their colleagues did not wait long to use these circumstances for their own benefit. For example, when Professor Marowsky, director of the faculty clinic, received post-mortem diagnoses from Lambl that he deemed unsuitable, he tried to get an additional opinion (and one more favourable to himself) from Chrzonszczewsky and then persuade trainee students to add this opinion into the pathologist’s protocol. The reason for the aforementioned conflict between Lambl and Marowsky, for example, was the desire of the latter to conduct histological studies with Chrzonszczewsky and not at the pathological anatomy office. Lambl’s response was, “I definitely do not understand this, since I consider the histological examination of pathological objects to be an integral part of pathological anatomy” (4). During subsequent official proceedings in this conflict, Marowsky also often appealed to the opinion of Chrzonszczewsky and hoped for his support in opposing Lambl (4).

In 1868, Dušan Lambl was appointed as an opponent at the defence of a dissertation that Professor Chrzonszczewsky evaluated as excellent. After reviewing the text of the work, Lambl found it completely untenable and doubted that the histological examination was carried out correctly, since the drawings made from the histopathological slides did not correspond to the text of the dissertation thesis. At the request of Lambl to provide original slides for the review, a refusal was received, motivated by the fact that the slides had already spoiled. At the end of the same year, Chrzonszczewsky again became a judge of scientific works on histology, this time for students’ research papers. He evaluated them very highly and nominated students for gold medals. Having doubts about the honesty of the authors and the impartiality of the judge, Lambl again expressed his wish to see the histological materials: “Experience taught me to be careful in agreeing with the opinion of another person, namely, with the opinion of Mr. Chrzonszczewsky”. At the same time, Lambl strongly emphasized that he had nothing against students and did not want to interfere with their awards but only to express doubt about the competence of a judge. Despite the indignation of Professor Chrzonszczewsky, the faculty took the side of Lambl and demanded that students present their histopathological slides. Chrzonszczewsky answered that the slides could not be presented since they had already spoiled, and students tried to refuse the competition and further rechecking of their papers. To avoid harming the students, Professor Lambl stopped pressuring them, and soon after that, the slides were found, and the authors of the papers received their long-awaited medals (4).

In 1868 and 1870, Dušan Lambl participated in a commission hearing complaints by the director of the faculty obstetric clinic Ivan Lazarevich against senior midwife Anna Winterfeld. The director accused his subordinate of a lack of appropriate education, immorality and obstruction to the educational process in the clinic. All members of the School of Medicine leaned to the side of Professor Lazarevich, except for Albert Pitra and Dušan Lambl. The latter spoke in defence of the midwife and said that if she was hired without a diploma, then the faculty is responsible for this; that her alleged immorality was refuted by her high moral and professional reputation in all circles of Kharkiv society; and that there was no evidence of her obstruction to the educational process. It is now known that Anna Winterfeld received her midwife diploma in 1827 at the St. Petersburg Medical and Surgical Academy and was one of the first midwives in the Russian Empire with a specialized education. In the clinic at the University of Kharkiv, she worked from 1835 to 1870, and during this time, she performed more than 15 thousand assisted childbirths. Having earned fame as a humane midwife who did not refuse to help either wealthy citizens or the poor, Anna Winterfeld was one of the most famous women in Kharkiv at that time. It is also known that, on her initiative, the Ministry of Education raised and resolved the issue of granting scholarships to midwives who studied at Russian faculty clinics (16, 17, 4).

“HE WAS OFTEN CALLED AN ECCENTRIC AND A WEIRDO” – THE MEMOIRS OF ANATOLY KONI

A vivid picture of the environment in which Professor Lambl worked in Kharkiv is conveyed in the memories of the famous Russian lawyer Anatoly Koni, who in the early stages of his career was sent to Kharkiv as an assistant prosecutor (1866–9). On 1 January 1869, A. Koni went to the New Year’s banquet of the Assembly of the Nobility in Kharkiv, but, upon leaving his house, he received an anonymous letter notifying him that a deceased prisoner, whose body was delivered to the School of Medicine for an autopsy, had been murdered by other prisoners but that the authorities of the prison castle had concealed this fact. Having arrived at the party, A. Koni found Professor Lambl among guests and asked him to go along with him to the anatomical theatre. Professor Lambl readily and positively responded to the request of the young assistant prosecutor (18):

And we, just as we were at the banquet, in dress coats and white ties, went to the university, where not without difficulty we found the half-drunk watchman, and this Virgil led us in circles of anatomical hell. Passing several rooms, we entered an amphitheatre, where in front of empty benches a table stood with a marble board, and a dead young naked woman sat on it, leaning against a special support that held her head. …Passing her, we entered a long corridor with small and dull windows that were, if memory serves me well, at a level higher than a person’s height. …At the end of the corridor, several steps led to a storeroom, lit by one window, where the corpses sent from the police and hospitals for autopsy and for student work were kept. …Lambl sent for the registry, and we began to smoke and walk along the corridor, where it was very cold. …Finally, the watchman brought the registry and began to look for the feet of the corpse sent from prison. …The number we were looking for was on the foot of a dead man, lying at the very bottom of the pile, head to the wall. The watchman began to pull his legs, and the bodies on top began to turn. Here came the body and arms, and here are the chest and shoulders, but where is the head?! It turned out that the head was cut off with some skilled hand and disappeared along with its “battle marks”. The watchman recalled that the head was cut off and carried away by a prosector for some special needs. We immediately sent for the prosector, who lived right there in the yard; the watchman, continuing to grumble, walked with a lazy gait, after having leaned the headless corpse against his comrades in misfortune. We began to walk down the hall and smoke again. Meanwhile, the short winter day began to be replaced by the approaching twilight. The watchman did not return. Finally, Lambl lost his patience and, telling me, “I will go for the head myself,” was quickly gone, so I did not have time to raise the question of whether I should go with him. …But finally, there was a faint light in the hall, and then the steps were heard at the end of the corridor, and Lambl appeared with a bag in his hands, and behind him was a watchman with a lantern. In the bag was a head with bright red spots on the face. Lambl fitted it to the neck of the standing corpse and, making sure that it was in its place, took it off again and, looking attentively, told me, “That is nonsense written in the letter: It is not bruising from beatings; it is an inflammatory condition of the skin. These are probably and even undoubtedly traces of local inflammation. I’ll send you a written report tomorrow”. And taking the head with him, he went out with me (18).

Another time, when A. Koni needed a consultation from Professor Lambl, he found him in an anatomical theatre surrounded by students:

He was conducting an autopsy on the corpse to confirm the decreed diagnosis, and he performed it with amazing art, precision and knowledge, which were deployed under every movement of his scalpel. Having given himself up to the resolution of the pathological issue, animated and confident, eagerly sucking the little cigar butt, which miraculously did not burn his nose, he seemed to be a real priest of science in its exceptional service (18).

In addition to these valuable memories, A. Koni left us a rather detailed description of both Lambl’s appearance and some features of his character:

Mobile, energetic, with beautiful, full-of-life, clever brown eyes on a lean face, under the hanging loaf of greying hair, Lambl was giving the impression of an outstanding person, which he really was. The master of his field, he was not a narrow specialist but responded to all sorts of spiritual needs of human nature. Adept and expert in European literature, a fine connoisseur of art, he could rightfully say about himself, “nihil humanum me alienum puto”. For example, he studied and knew Dante in detail, and with his explanations and remarks, inspired me with love and interest in Gogarth’s art. As a practical doctor, he laughed at the narrow specialisation that lately has developed so much, and in understanding the picture and the meaning of the disease, he set his sights on his own creative thought rather than slavishly following what the last word of foreign books and especially various chemical and other studies would tell him. He treated not the theoretically understood disease but each patient, individualizing his techniques and instructions and giving a wide place to psychological observation. He had been often called an eccentric and a weirdo, but this eccentric could add to his asset not a few brilliant healings where there was a serious and definite ailment and where it was only needed to raise the spiritual structure of a person without attaching to him a certain medical label with the inevitable pre-treatment procedure and regime (18).

One such example of the uncommon treatment by Professor Lambl was experienced by A. Koni himself, who at one point developed severe tiredness, anaemia, weakness and fatigue, which was an issue for a young specialist. “The prominent doctors of Kharkiv recognized my position as very serious, but diverged in the definition of treatment” (18). When Lambl found out about A. Koni’s illness, he came to him with advice: “Do not think about your illness; it is called youth, weakness caused by hard work and nervousness.” The treatment that Professor appointed for A. Koni was a trip to Europe for new impressions. In addition, when the patient asked what water he should drink there, Professor answered: “It is necessary to drink, but not water. You should drink beer. Do so – go from one beer to another beer, and when you have arrived in France, drink red wine” (18).

“Lambl was really original in everything,” recalls A. Koni in his memoirs. “After his wedding, he invited us – his groomsmen – from the church to his apartment, rich in books and poor in furniture, changed into his usual work suit and, asking us to stay with the bride, went to attend some interesting medical consultation, which lasted until late night” (18). The Professor Lambl’s bride was Eugenia Alexandrovna Edelberg (4). In this marriage, Eugenia and Dušan had two daughters, Olga and Natalia (2).

AFTER KHARKIV

On 13 November 1871, Professor Lambl transferred to the University of Warsaw (Poland), where he was appointed as a professor in the Department of the Therapeutic faculty clinic as well as director of the “Holy Spirit” hospital (2).

Parting with this outstanding scientist and physician, his Kharkiv colleagues elected him as an honorary member of the Kharkiv Medical Society. In Warsaw, this “priest of science” continued his successful scientific, pedagogical and medical services. He also did not abandon his other talents: “Engaged in science, Lambl was no stranger to art. He painted, loved music, and was no stranger to creativity in this area. He cut, lithographed on stone, and during these activities, he was not able to see another life,” recalled Pavel Kovalevsky, who witnessed Lambl first in Kharkiv (as his student) and then in Warsaw (as a rector of the University of Warsaw), shortly before his death in 1895 (4).

CONCLUSION

The memoirs of contemporaries about the presence of Vilém Dušan Lambl in Kharkiv shed some light on the life of a foreign physician and teacher in the Russian Empire during the 19^th century. They reveal some details of his daily life, work, relationships with students, colleagues, patients, and society and demonstrate some features of the immersion of a foreigner in a new environment.

Fate brought this young “revolutionary”, the famous Czech pathologist, to the university of distant Kharkiv, where the School of Medicine did not even have a department of pathological anatomy. However, the ardent and extraordinary nature of Dušan Lambl allowed him to continue to carry and spread the “revolution” around him. The influence of this distinguished scientist from Czechia changed much in Kharkiv: his lectures, teaching methods, manner of conducting autopsies and scientific research, public speeches on courts and scientific meetings at the Medical Society set a new standard in the scientific community in Kharkiv. Despite the fact that Lambl had his foes here, who called him an eccentric for truth-seeking and his harsh scientific criticism, most colleagues and residents of the city had great respect for this Czech professor for his invaluable contribution to the history of Kharkiv.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

∗ Correspondence address:

Maksym Kyrychenko, PhD, V.N. 

Karazin Kharkiv National University,

Svobody Square, 6, 61000, Kharkiv, Ukraine.

Tel.: +38(050)289-43-37

E-mail: m.i.kiritchenko@karazin.ua