• W P Gerritsen.
• Universiteit Leiden. wim.gerritsen@let.uu.nl
• Gewina. 2007 Jan 1; 30 (1): 1-10.

AbstractAround 1600, the age-old belief in the anti-toxic effect of unicorn horn began to be called into question. This is evidenced by the views of two well-known French pharmaceutic authorities whose publications are discussed in this paper: the surgeon Ambroise Paré (1510-1590), court physician to four French kings, and the Montpellier pharmacist Laurent Catelan (1568-1647), who owned a famous cabinet de curiosités. Although Paré had to accept, however reluctantly, the existence of the unicorn (since it is mentioned in the Bible), he vehemently denied the supposed medicinal effect of unicorn products. He defended his position by an appeal to ancient and contemporary authorities, by rational argumentation, and by experiment. Paré's arguments failed to convince Catelan, who adhered to an alternative, so-called spagyric, medical theory of neoplatonic inspiration, as propagated by Paracelsus and Ficino. Catelan remained convinced of the efficacity of unicorn horn, which in his view could drain the human body from any poisonous substance. The medical establishment being reluctant to give up a rewarding source of income,'unicorn' remained much in demand as a prescription.

11 keywords...

hide…