Wegbereiter der Chirurgie, Johann Friedrich Dieffenbach—Theodor Billroth

In some instances, the appearance of unity may be illusory. For example, little is said of the relationship between the Royal College and the College of Family Physicians of Canada. The latter group also certifies the attainment of higher educational standards by a large group of Canadian physicians, and the CFPC, unlike the Royal College, insists upon periodic re-examination. The fact that this is done by a separate group suggests a flaw in unity. One suspects that this and a small number of similar subjects received less attention than they might because this history of the Royal College was commissioned by the College. Certainly, the book has an aura ofuninterrupted accomplishment that makes the College seem almost too good to be true; every officer and every member, or almost everyone, seems to strive towards the sensible, rational, unified goal. We know that human nature isn't like that, but institutional history is. No one would expect an official historian to fill his book with scandal and disruption, even if they existed, and in the case of the College I suspect they do not. A cliche of historical writing is the near impossibility of making institutional tomes interesting. Shephard comes commendably close, far closer than most writers of similar works, though ultimately even he founders on the necessary profusion ofnames, dates, committees, and so on. Nevertheless, the section on reorganizing the College to eliminate the two-tier system of membership is handled with great skill and manages to present a complex subject with clarity and insight. Similarly, the dispute about the ultimate direction of the McLaughlin Examination and Research Centre becomes genuinely exciting and one senses the emotions that such decisions can generate (although at the end one is left wondering about the fate of the dissidents). The fundamental problem with institutional history is that institutions are innately self-protective. The emotions of the individuals who compose institutions, their foibles and idiosyncrasies, rarely creep into the records upon which a historian relies. Yet it is these very peculiarities that could give life to the account. This is exemplified nicely in Shephard's book when, in narrating the origins of the McLaughlin Centre, the author quotes a delightful account of an officer of the College presenting the concept of the Centre to Col. McLaughlin and an adviser, both extremely deaf. A veritable shouting match finally conveys the message, after which, with no hesitation or discussion, a …