“Who’s on First?”: Garrison-Morton-Norman at the End of the Twentieth Century

Intensive study of the history of medicine is for doctors alone.. . . Such studies will always tend to diminish our pride, in the realization of the thousand-fold labors and vast stretches of time required to lift the doctor to his present social status and bedside medicine to its now commendable estate.' In the 83 years since its first publication in 1912, Garrison and Morton's Medical Bibliography has become the most authoritative work in the history of medicine. The authority derives from its age, from its practicality, and, most of all, from its celebration of origins and priority in the history of medicine. Indeed, until recently, the Medical Bibliography was governed by its own myth of origin which held that Sir William Osler inspired Garrison's work. Preoccupied with origins as such, it serves more as a node in the reward system of twentieth-century medical science and practice than as a work of sound historical scholarship. It is chiefly for those interested in the commemorative voice of medical history rather than for those undertaking the disciplined study of the historical record (the forensic voice). Tragically, because the compilers I have worked alone in surveying the specialized and fragmented literature of medical history-a literature which has grown exponentially over the past three centuries-they have produced a work which cannot do justice to the profession it celebrates.