Analysing all the surviving reports and mentions of the supposed unicorn discovered in the year 1663 near Quedlinburg, this paper replies to the question: "Who reconstructed the skeleton of the unicorn from a find of bones, O. von Guericke or G. W. Leibniz?" and diagnoses that neither of them did so. The author of the first report with a figure was Johannes Meyer, astronomer and treasurer of the Abbes Superior of Quedlinburg; and his German text had been translated by both partly in different ways (Guericke's Experimenta nova, printed in 1672 and used by Leibniz; Leibniz's Protogaea, first printed posthumously in 1749). Discovery, excavation, salvage and reconstruction of the unicorn were ascribed to Guericke only by Othenio Abel (for the first time in 1918 and thereafter on many occasions) without indicating any source for that. His story of the supposed discovery since then has been embellished with a lot of imagination further and further. However, Leibniz himself wrote in his Protogaea, that a figure of the unicorn skeleton (which Guericke does not reproduce) had been sent to him together with a report (by J. Meyer from Quedlinburg); and this figure he and his engraver Nicholas Seeländer 'corrected' and completed in accordance with their own imagination of a unicorn's build in 1716 to illustrate the Protogaea (M. B. Valentini printed a copy of Meyer's original in 1704).

The discussion on systematization and methodology combined with the question of state interference and professional political interests accompanies the beginning of Continuing Medical Education (CME) until today. The development of CME for the period 1871 to 1945 shows a process of systematization regarding organizational, administrational and structural level with participation of government and medical professional policies. In the time of the German Empire the foundation for a structured CME was created by establishing a system of charge free and decentralized training courses. For the first time, thought was given to distinguish different types of medical education. During the period of the Weimar Republic the structure of decentralized CME was supported by developing new teaching and learning methods. The medical professional representatives refused any state participation except financial assistance. In the Nazi era CME was brought into line of Nazi ideology concerning structure, organization and administration. CME obligations were mandatory for all physicians and trained them on Nazi ideology especially. CME as a lifelong process centrally guided in combination with decentralized structures is an appropriate way for offering training to all physicians. State support is important and necessary, but shaping the contents should be a duty of the professional associations of Physicians. The quality of patient care is no longer complied as soon as the aspect of cost-efficiency is transformed into a pressure factor concerning political interests and social insurance.

In 18th century academic medicine was formed through the interplay of theory and practice. This scientific development will be shown by the example of Friedrich Hoffmann's twelve-volume collection of case studies "Medicina consultatoria". The correlation of theoretical assumptions (humoralism, four temperaments, mechanistic understanding of the body) and therapeutic practice (bloodletting, sweating therapy, water cure) will be pointed out. It will become clear that Hoffmann's statements on diagnosis and prognosis as well as his general view on therapeutic measures arose as a logical consequence of the pathological concept. The same holds true for his advice on lifestyle and nutrition, which formed part of the medical therapy.

The emergence of early brain research activities at the University of Strasburg constitutes a prominent interdisciplinary research field, which combines investigative approaches from anatomy, pathology, radiology, medicine, and surgery. This process happened during three consecutive political breaks: the Wilhelminian Empire's restitution of the German-speaking university (1872–1918), the liberal Interwar Period (1918–1939), as well as the Nazi occupation and creation of the German Reichs-University (1940/41–1944). Between 1872 and 1918, after the end of the Franco-German War and the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine into the German Empire, the newly inaugurated Kaiser-Wilhelms-University not only constituted the first foundation of a German university after the creation of the Rhenish Friedrich-Wilhelms University of Bonn in 1818. It became also established as a premier research university that showcased the excellence of German science and post-secondary education in Strasburg. During the first two decades of its existence, leading academics were hired as professors for the Medical Faculty, such as anatomist Wilhelm von Waldeyer (development of the neuron concept), pathologist Friedrich Daniel von Recklinghausen (exploration of neurofibromatosis), psychiatrist Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing (pioneering studies in sexual psychopathology), who pushed the research envelope in contemporary neuroscience. The international standing of the university came to decline at the end of the nineteenth century, however, since several of its founding faculty were hired away to major research universities in Prussia; and lessened academic productivity of the remaining faculty subsequently became the rule before the outbreak of the First World War. During the interwar period, between 1918 and 1939, the Medical Faculty in Strasburg emerged as a liberal institution under the leadership of French-Alsatian dean Georges Gross, who came to advertise faculty positions to both French and German professors in the same way. Following to the second annexation of Alsace-Lorraine with the occupation of France in 1940, the new Nazi government – represented by Gauleiter Rudolf Wagner – came to marginalize the French influence and aligned many research activities with NS ideologies and horrific anthropological, euthanasia, and military programs. Nikolaus Jensch (∼ anthropological determinants of homosexuality), August Hirt (∼ racial foundations of scull and brain development), or Hans Lullies (∼ sympathetic lesions following to freezing traumas) became prime movers at the Strasburg Medical Faculty during "the Third Reich". In November 1944, the Reichs-University ended abruptly when allied French and American forces advanced into Alsace-Lorraine and brought the historical Nazi period to its final end.

This paper emphasizes the great interest of the later Middle Ages in terms of burning mirrors, especially parabolic mirrors, which were considered as particularly efficient; the underlying theory was that of conic sections. This interest will be documented in the Appendix in the form of a short presentation of 29 treatises. The starting point is Paris BnF ms. lat. 9335, a collection of translations from the Arabic, copied in the early 13th century, which came into the possession of the Venetian physician and naturalist John Fontana (ca. 1395–1455). The optical part (Diokles, Apollonius, Alhazen) has been explained by him in a marginal note and a series of short definitions. These observations support the proposal by Horst Kranz, to change the date of an anonymous treatise on the construction of parabolic mirrors (Speculi almukefi compositio), previously dated by Marshall Clagett to the mid 14th century. We consider it now as a work of the famous Venetian naturalist John Fontana (ca 1430–1435).

The anonymously transmitted Speculi almukefi compositio is one of the most original works that the Middle Ages brought out on conic sections and construction of parabolic mirrors. The author is suspected to have been an unknown monk of the 13th/14th century. Based on source documents that were previously left unconsidered, this article assigns the tract to the Venetian Johannes Fontana. The diversely interested doctor of arts and medicine practiced as a physician in Udine in the 1430s, a time during which he wrote about geometric subjects. The close relationship to practical application is typical for the scientist Fontana. It is expressed in an excursion on the conditions of a good steel. The rich text, still to be evaluated from a technical-historical point of view, is published here in a German translation for the first time.

Little is known about the people who suffered from toothache or other dental illnesses in the 19th century. This is, in part, due to the lack of sources describing individual experiences with such ailments. The patient journals of the homoeopath Clemens Maria Franz von Bönninghausen (1785–1864), who practiced in Münster in Westphalia between 1829 and 1864, offer the possibility of learning more about patients in the field of dental care and medicine. Whilst practising, Bönninghausen treated more than 27,000 patients. The entries he made about 14,266 of them were transcribed in a database which provides a rich source of information about the clientele the homoeopath had, their illnesses and their behaviour during medical treatment. 785 patients told the homoeopath that they had problems with their teeth. Some only vaguely said that they had some kind of ache, whilst others described pulling, stabbing, searing or even burning and itching sensations. The majority of these people also had tried other cures before. In some cases, teeth already had been pulled out without improving the situation. Therefore the entries in the patient journals are proof of the demand for dental care and treatment and the growing awareness of people towards their dental health. But during their search for a cure, they not only consulted the trained dentists who could, in most cases, only offer unsuccessful treatments. This clashed with the attempts by these trained specialists to improve their social status and professionalisation.

'Adequality' is an essential step in Fermat's method of finding maxima, minima, tangents, centers of gravity etc. However, it seems to be an enigma what this method really consists of. It is usually understood that a convincing interpretation would require some elements of approximation or (infinitesimal?) smallness, although such elements cannot be found in Fermat's writings. We shall present a reading which is based on Fermat's frequent use of the, less-than'-relation when either a maximal point on a given curve or a point on a tangent outside the curve is considered. In all applications of his method Fermat constructs certain additional polynomials (h) which have the form (h) = hψ(h) and shows that (h) is strictly positive in a certain neighbourhood of 0 for h ≠ 0. This is the core of the fermatian method of, adequality'. It allows one to conclude that (h) has a double root at h = 0 and hence the constant term c of ψ(h) must be zero. In this way Fermat passes from, adequality' to, equality', hoping that the equation c = 0 yields enough information to arrive at a solution of the problem under consideration. It is clear that infinitesimal arguments are not needed in this reading of the fermatian method, and that the only mathematical techniques used herein were available at Fermat's time. In addition the mathematics of Fermat becomes clear and correct. We also carefully analyze the source of Fermat's method of adequality, namely the 'p a r i s ó t ē s ' of Diophantus.

This paper addresses the early education and training of the young Julius Plücker (1801–1868) as mathematician in early 19th century Germany. Plücker received his PhD 1824 at the University of Marburg and became the chair of Mathematics at the University of Bonn in 1835. He was born into a successful and rich German merchant family. His social background and connections helped him in his early academic career and gave him a distinct advantage over his fellow student Jakob Steiner (1796–1863). The personal and social differences may therefore have been the underlying reason for the hostility and lifelong rift between these two famous mathematicians of the 19th century. The paper describes not only the impact of the social connections in German academia, but argues that those provide an explanation for the reason and circumstances of Plücker obtaining his PhD in Marburg, a university that he had never visited before.

Drawing on scattered archival records this article explores the circumstances allowing the new release of the German medico-historical journal “Sudhoffs Archiv” in 1952. The article focuses on the paralyzing conditions of the publishing trade in post-1945 Germany due to a tremendous lack of resources, a growing political East-West-antagonism and the Nazi background of both authors and publishers. The article examines how academics competed for influence in the newly-structured field of German Medical History which, in the 1950s, underwent a generational change. However, former students' loyalties to their teachers remained very close resulting in a search for continuity. This became visible when, in 1952, the first postwar volume of “Sudhoffs Archiv“ appeared, joining together a first part comprising of articles authored and submitted to the editors in 1943 and a second part consisting of articles submitted for the 1952 re-launch, epitomizing the missed chance for a new beginning. The examined correspondences of the new editors shed light on the protagonists' political opportunism vis-à-vis readers outside Germany and their struggle both for quality assurance in a discipline, which was deprived of its most progressive exponents as a consequence of emigration during the Nazi period, and for recognition in the international scientific community. In this complex field of conflicting interests, the journal missed a substantial and methodological reorientation in the 1950s.