Ohio History Journal

WILLIAM BARLOW AND DAVID 0. POWELL

Homeopathy and Sexual Equality:

The Controversy Over Coeducation

at Cincinnati's Pulte Medical

College, 1873-1879

The number of women physicians in the United States increased

dramatically during the late nineteenth century. From a mere 200

or less in 1860, their ranks swelled to over 7,000 by 1900.1 In Ohio,

the number of female doctors grew from 42 to 451 in the last three

decades of the century.² Although reliable statistics are not avail-

able, it has been estimated that a majority of these women in Ohio

and elsewhere were trained in schools sponsored by groups of physi-

cians who dissented from orthodox medical therapy and were

branded as irregular sects by the American Medical Association.³

Homeopathy, a major dissenting sect which advocated extremely

small doses of medication, provided much of this early educational

opportunity.⁴ In Ohio, for example, the second woman to receive an

William Barlow is Professor of History at Seton Hall University and David O.

Powell is Professor of History at C.W. Post Center, Long Island University. The

authors wish to acknowledge the support of the American Philosophical Society,

Penrose Fund, Grant Number 8438. A shortened version of the paper was read at a

joint meeting of the Ohio Medical Association and the Ohio Academy of Medical

History, Columbus, Ohio, May 15, 1979.

1. Mary Roth Walsh, "Doctors Wanted: No Women Need Apply": Sexual Barriers in

the Medical Profession, 1835-1975 (New Haven, 1977), 186.

2. Frederick C. Waite, "Ohio Physicians in the Nineteenth Century, A Statistical

Study," The Ohio State Medical Journal, XL (August, 1950), 791-92.

3. Carol Lopate, Women in Medicine (Baltimore, 1968), 6.

4. Homeopathy was one of several medical sects which emerged in the first half of

the nineteenth century and were considered irregular because of their rejection of the

heroic therapy then practiced by most orthodox physicians. Heroic medicine consisted

of extensive bleeding, blistering, and sweating, together with drastic purging and

puking induced by massive doses of calomel and other toxic substances. In contrast,

homeopathy was based on the law of infinitesimals-the smaller the dose the more

effective the result-and provided welcome relief to many patients formerly subjected

to the heroic regimen. Becoming popular and somewhat fashionable in the middle

102                                                  OHIO HISTORY

M.D. degree, Helen Cook, was graduated from Cleveland

Homeopathic College in 1852. From that date until 1914, 260

women earned homeopathic degrees in Cleveland compared to only

64 regulars. Nationally, by 1880 nine of the eleven homeopathic

schools admitted women.5

Explanations of the apparent absence of sexual barriers in

homeopathy range from the noble to the crass. They vary from the

sect's genuine dedication to a variety of nineteenth-century reforms

including women's rights, through a desire to spread its creed by

any means, including using women, to a crude entrepreneurial

attempt to make money by expanding enrollments in its educational

institutions.⁶ Whatever the reason, historians have assumed that in

contrast to orthodox centers of medical education, homeopathic col-

leges eagerly welcomed women. This assumption has never been

examined in detail. Moreover, since homeopathic medical schools

either disappeared or converted to regular therapeutics in the twen-

tieth century, few materials remain for a thorough and systematic

investigation. Fortunately, the records of Pulte Medical College of

Cincinnati are extant and provide the basis of this study.⁷

If Pulte was typical of her sister colleges, the belief that

homeopathic schools ardently espoused sexual equality must be

reexamined. From its founding in 1872 until 1879, coeducation was

hotly debated and proved so devisive that it almost destroyed the

school. The wrangling reached a fever pitch in 1878 when it was

taken up by the press and aptly headlined "Homeopathic War."

Before the issue was resolved, it produced mass resignations from

the Board of Trustees and faculty, vitriolic personal attacks on pro-

fessors, and law suits charging libel and slander.⁸

The dispute over female students at Pulte did not occur in a

vacuum. It coincided with a national debate concerning coeducation

prompted by the well-publicized views of Dr. Edward H. Clarke, a

and late nineteenth century, homeopathy established its own medical societies and

schools and was a major source of competition to the regular profession. After the rise

of scientific medicine, homeopathy and its medical institutions largely died out in the

early twentieth century. See Martin Kaufman, Homeopathy in America: The Rise

and Fall of a Medical Heresy (Baltimore, 1971).

5. Frederick C. Waite, Western Reserve University Centennial History of the School

of Medicine (Cleveland, 1946), 328, 330.

6. John B. Blake, "Women and Medicine in Ante-Bellum America," Bulletin of the

History of Medicine, XXXIX (Spring, 1965), 99-123; Waite, "Ohio Physicians," 792;

John Duffy, The Healers: The Rise of the Medical Establishment (New York, 1976),

271.

7. Pulte Medical College Papers, Cincinnati Historical Society, Cincinnati, Ohio.

8. Cincinnati Daily Times, June 13, 1878.

Homeopathy & Sexual Equality                                   103

Harvard Medical School professor. Dr. Clarke argued that although

capable women had a right to study medicine, they must be segre-

gated from male students and would be hampered professionally by

their periodicity. His Sex in Education; or, A Fair Chance for the

Girls, published in 1873, extended his argument against mixed clas-

ses to include all female education beyond puberty. Concentrated

study would divert "force to the brain" which was necessary in the

"manufacture of bl od, muscle, and nerve, that is, in growth." The

result would be women with "monstrous brains and puny bodies ...

weak digestion . . . and constipated bowels."⁹ The feminist counter-

attack was immediate. Articles, books, and investigations quickly

appeared which concentrated on proving that menstruation did not

impair women's ability to study or work.¹⁰ The champions of women,

however, did not deal specifically with the question of medical

coeducation.

That issue was at the time, however, in contention at a number of

academic institutions. The University of Michigan and several

other schools opened their doors to women medical students early in

the 1870s. In 1878, the same year that the Cincinnati squabble

reached a climax, even Harvard considered coeducation. Conceding

that there was "a legitimate demand for, and an important place to

be filled by, well-educated women as physicians," the professors

nevertheless voted against their admission. It is significant that

what was given at Michigan and denied at Harvard was equal but

separate education. At Michigan the only course in which the sexes

were integrated was chemistry. At Harvard the rejected plan pro-

vided for "complete separation" in laboratories and most lectures."

At irregular institutions from 1869 to 1877, six homeopathic schools

opted for coeducation, although several restricted women to segre-

gated classes. By 1878, only Pulte and two other homeopathic col-

leges remained exclusvely male.¹²

9. Walsh, "Doctors Wanted," 119-27; Edward H. Clarke, Sex in Education; or, a

Fair Chance for the Girls (Boston, 1873), 41.

10. Walsh, "Doctors Wanted," 127-32; Julia W. Howe, ed., Sex and Education: A

Reply to Dr. E.H. Clarke's "Sex in Education" (Boston, 1874).

11. Bertha Selmon, "Early Development of Medical Opportunity for Women in the

United States," Medical Woman's Journal, LIV (January, 1947), 25-28, 60; Thomas

F. Harrington, The Harvard Medical School: A History, Narrative and Documentary,

1782-1905 (3 vols., New York, 1905), III, 1223-34.

12. William H. King, History of Homeopathy and Its Institutions in America (4

vols., New York, 1905), II, 211-14, 380-95, 410, III, 106-07. For examples of equal but

separate instruction at homeopathic schools, see University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,

Michigan, The Homeopathic Medical School, Second Annual Announcement, 1876-77

104                                                  OHIO HISTORY

At the center of the protracted confrontation over women at Pulte

stood four prominent faculty members: Drs. Thomas P. Wilson,

M.H. Slosson, Seth R. Beckwith, and John D. Buck. They were all

among the founders of the school, were graduates of Cleveland

Homeopathic College, and, with the exception of Dr. Slosson, had

taught there before coming to Cincinnati. Drs. Beckwith and Slos-

son emerged as opponents of coeducation, with Drs. Buck and Wil-

son as proponents. Other faculty members took less consistent or

conspicuous stands during the controversy.¹³

Either by intent or neglect, Pulte's original bylaws and announce-

ments left the status of women undefined.¹⁴ Consequently, at "every

session of lectures a number" of women applied for admittance "but

were turned away."¹⁵ Such was the fate of Frances Janney of Col-

umbus, Ohio. In 1874 her preceptor wrote "to Cincinnati to see if

they would admit me this fall." Denied acceptance, she entered Bos-

ton University where she received her M.D. degree in 1877. During

the spring of 1876, however, she studied in Cincinnati at Dr. Wil-

son's Ophthalmalic Clinic which was housed in the same building as

Pulte. After Dr. Wilson persuaded some of Pulte's teachers to permit

her to attend their classes unofficially, she proudly informed her

mother that she would "be the first lady student to attend lectures at

Pulte College after all." But other professors, she complained,

"Beckwith among the number, say they will not lecture to ladies

...." They were "not true gentlemen," she felt, "& want to say

things they ought not to, & do not want the restraint of the presence

of ladies."¹⁶ Thus, despite Frances Janney's attendance at a few

classes, Pulte's doors remained formally closed to women.

On four occasions from 1873 to 1878, coeducation was debated and

voted on by Pulte's faculty. In 1873, spurning the idea of mixed

classes, "a Spring Term for women only" was approved. A circular

advertising the course was issued, but since "not a single woman

(Ann Arbor, 1876), 3, and Tenth Annual Announcement of Hahnemann Medical

College, Chicago, Illinois, Session of 1869-70 (Chicago, 1869), 8-9.

13. Cleave's Biographical Cyclopaedia of Homeopathic Physicians and Surgeons

(Philadelphia, 1873), 53, 319-20; King, History of Homeopathy, II, 221-23, III, 36-61,

IV, 384-85.

14. Articles of Incorporation of By-Laws of the Pulte Medical College, Cincinnati,

Ohio (Cincinnati, 1881); First Annual Announcement of Pulte Medical College . ..

Session of 1872-73 (Cincinnati, 1872).

15. Letter, John D. Buck, William Owens, Thomas P. Wilson to Board of Trustees

of Pulte College, June 11, 1878, Pulte Medical College Papers (hereafter cited as

Buck et al. to Board of Trustees).

16. Letters, Frances Janney to Rebecca A.S. Janney, August 7, 1874, May 3, 4,

1876, Janney Family Papers, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.

106                                                OHIO HISTORY

voted down." Three years later on February 5, 1878, Dr. Buck intro-

duced a resolution approving matriculants "without distinction of

sex" which was passed, only to be rescinded four days later. There-

upon, Drs. Buck and Wilson angrily submitted their resignations to

the Board of Trustees and demanded an "investigation of the lying

& bullying by which women were excluded."¹⁷ When reconciliation

efforts failed, the trustees requested that the two antagonistic fac-

tions present their ideas in writing in order to provide a basis for

discussion and decision.18

The arguments for and against the entrance of women to Pulte

were presented to the Board of Trustees at a meeting on May 28,

1878.¹⁹ Speaking for a majority of the faculty, Dr. Beckwith was

supported by Dr. Slosson and three other professors. A longtime foe

of female physicians, Dr. Beckwith had earlier fought unsuccessful-

ly to exclude them from local, state, and national homeopathic orga-

nizations. By the 1870s, however, with increasing numbers entering

the profession, he grudgingly admitted that "no one denies her

right" and capability of "practicing medicine." Even so, he doubted

if they could succeed as general practitioners. "Nature" had adapted

women only for the "treatment of disease peculiar to her own sex."

Furthermore, they must be trained in "Colleges established for

them, or in entirely separate departments" and only "for the very

limited sphere ... in which they can reasonably hope to succeed"-

obstetrics, gynecology, and diseases of children.²⁰

But Pulte, Dr. Beckwith proclaimed, must remain a male bastion.

It was "organized for the medical education of men," and the "large

and intelligent" male student body "almost to a man" opposed

female students. More importantly, mixed classes would attract im-

moral women who would corrupt the "clinical instruction given to

male students." A separate department for women was "utterly im-

practicable" at Pulte. Moreover, lecturing to women separately on

surgery, anatomy, and obstetrics "would be obviously improper and

embarrassing to all parties." Adjunct female professors in these

sensitive chairs, Dr. Beckwith continued, likewise would be un-

17. Letter, Seth R. Beckwith, M.H. Slosson, C.C. Bronson, D.W. Hartshorn, W.H.

Hunt to Board of Trustees of Pulte College, June 11, 1879, Pulte Medical College

Papers (hereafter cited as Beckwith et al. to Board of Trustees).

18. Pulte College Board of Trustees Minutes, 1872-1889 (hand-written copy), May

28, 1878, 72-74, Pulte Medical College Papers (hereafter cited as Board of Trustees

Minutes).

19. Ibid.

20. Seth R. Beckwith, "Medical Education of Women," Cincinnati Medical Ad-

vance, I (July, 1973), 304-06; Beckwith et al. to Board of Trustees.

Homeopathy & Sexual Equality                            107

acceptable "to the gentlemen occupying them." In addition, even if

women were admitted to Pulte, they could not fulfill the graduation

requirement of clinical observation and lectures because the Cincin-

nati Hospital barred them from its teaching facilities. In short, Dr.

Beckwith concluded, female students would destroy "the harmony

and increasing popularity, usefulness and prosperity of the Col-

lege." There the opponents rested their case.21

The arguments for coeducation were contained in an eleven-page

printed brief signed by Drs. Buck and Wilson and part-time profes-

sor Dr. William Owens. A wide-ranging document, it criticized the

organization of the board, attributed the school's unstable finances

to Dr. Beckwith's antifeminism, and mustered evidence from home

and abroad supporting coeducational classes. Charging that Dr.

Beckwith had manipulated the members of the Board of Trustees to

his will, the brief demanded that he be removed as its president. In

that position, he had alientated "a great and growing portion of

influential and cultured society." More specifically, he was guilty of

the "slanderous assertion, broadly and loudly advocated that no

respectable women will attend a Medical College with men, and

that the College which admits them is but another name for a

Whore House," thus casting "offensive and indecent asperities on

women and sister Colleges" which accept them.²²

The brief went on to link certain financial "failures and short-

comings" to Dr. Beckwith's refusal to sanction coeducation. Dr.

Joseph H. Pulte, after whom the school was named, originally prom-

ised a handsome endowment but after women were excluded

changed his mind, stating that "his wife, as his apothecary, had

done as much to establish Homeopathy in Cincinnati as he had, and

he did not propose to take her money as well as his own, to endow a

college that refused to her sex equal rights and opportunities ...."

In addition, Dr. Beckwith's "out spoken and violent opposition" to

women "greatly reduced the number of our students" and thus

"most seriously affected our financial revenues."23

In a more positive vein, the brief argued that coeducation was in

keeping with the "spirit of the present age, the progress of time, and

the course of medical education." Even in "conservative Europe the

barriers" to women had crumbled at the Universities of Paris, Lon-

don, Upsala, and Zurich, along with other prestigious schools in

21. Ibid.

22. Buck et al. to Board of Trustees.

23. Ibid.; Cincinnati Daily Times, June 13, 1878.

108                                              OHIO HISTORY

Italy, Russia, and Austria. On the domestic scene, the recent May,

1878, Homeopathic Inter-Collegiate Conference declared unani-

mously that "our" colleges should be opened "to all . . . without

distinction of sex."²⁴ While attending that conference, Dr. Wilson

had solicited the candid evaluations of coeducation from representa-

tives of the seven institutions where it existed. Six replied in

lengthy letters which were included in the brief. Eschewing all

theoretical speculations, the respondents, some of whom were

formerly hostile to female students, detailed the actual results of

mixed classes in their institutions and thus provided a thoroughly

practical refutation of Drs. Beckwith's and Clarke's tirades against

coeducation.25

Women, observed Dr. J.G. Gilchrist of the University of Michigan

Homeopathic Medical College, were intellectually "equal to the men

in exact knowledge . . . and class standing." Dr. J.R. Sanders of

Cleveland Homeopathic College, on the basis of"near twenty years"

experience, even felt that women acquired "this knowledge with

greater rapidity" than men and held "it with equal tenacity." Dur-

ing "the last year ... the best paper" in Dr. Charles Adams' surgical

examination at Chicago Homeopathic College "was from a women."

Women also possessed special healing talents which "naturally en-

dowed" them for medicine, declared Dr. A.C. Cowperthwait of the

Homeopathic Medical Department of the University of Iowa. "For

the more delicate ministry of the art," Dr. Sanders insisted, they

had "qualities prominent above man."26

Although women were decorous creatures, Dr. David Thayer of

Boston University had "no trouble" instructing "both sexes together

on all subjects, even those of the greatest delicacy." Dr. Adams had

"no more trouble with the cases in my cliniques on account of their

presence than the gynecologist has with his on the men's account."

Nothing had ever occurred in Dr. T.S. Hoyne's lectures at Hahne-

mann Medical College of Chicago "to offend even the most modest

woman in the land." Dr. Sanders never had "any difficulty or embar-

rassment by reason of women's presence, or ... any evidence of any

lady student suffering any offense, or wound of delicacy, or tarnish

24. Buck et al. to Board of Trustees.

25. Letters, David Thayer to Thomas P. Wilson, February 26, 1878; J.C. Sanders to

Wilson, February 26, 1878; J.G. Gilchrist to Wilson, February 25, 1878; T.S. Hoyne to

Wilson, February 25, 1878; Charles Adams to Wilson, February 25, 1878; A.C. Cow-

perthwait to Wilson, February 26, 1878, Pulte Medical College Papers.

26. Letters, Gilchrist to Wilson, Sanders to Wilson, Adams to Wilson, Cowper-

thwait to Wilson.

Homeopathy & Sexual Equality                             109

of true womanly modesty." "If this is possible in Obstetricy," he

emphasized, "it surely must be in every other department of medical

teaching.²⁷

The attendance of such superior moral beings in classes with men

in fact "had a silently beneficial effect on the sterner sex," reported

Dr. Gilchrist. Their presence at Cleveland was a "perpetual chal-

lenge" to "boorishness and vulgarity." The faculty there would nev-

er "forget the experience of lawlessness, rudeness, unmannerly and

unmanly demeanor" of male students at one session when women

were excluded. After women restrained the animalistic male,

however, he exerted an "inevitable challenge" to her "high endeavor

and rivalry of success." In short, Dr. Thayer was convinced that

coeducation allowed a "healthy emulation between the sexes which

contributes to the mutual advantage of both."²⁸

Finally, menstruation may account for woman's "emotional na-

ture," wrote Dr. Gilchrist, but rather than proving debilitating it

produced in female students an "esprit de corps" which men lacked.

At the University of Michigan "in not a single instance has a case of

break-down occurred among them, that cannot be matched by

enough, yes, more than enough cases among the men ... ." Women

were "equally enduring in the strain incident to prolonged and

somewhat severe mental application." "Dr. Clarke would find a

most overwhelming defeat of his system, if he were here." Dr. Cow-

perthwait summarized the views of his colleagues: "The day for

ladies to either starve or else be wash and sewing ladies is past."²⁹

Armed with these findings, the petitioners requested not only the

admission of women but their full equality as students, arguing that

"our College building is peculiarly adapted to the wants of a mixed

class .. .." They indicated, however, they would settle for less by

acknowledging "we have large unoccupied rooms for separate clas-

ses when so desired." But for their overall case, it could be "further

substantiated, if need be, by 'a cloud of witnesses.' "30

Both factions of the faculty asked the Board of Trustees for a

speedy resolution of the "vexing question." Initially, by removing

Dr. Beckwith as its president and forcing him and three other facul-

ty members to resign as trustees, the board appeared ready to accept

27. Letters, Thayer to Wilson, Adams to Wilson, Hoyne to Wilson, Sanders to

Wilson.

28. Letters, Gilchrist to Wilson, Thayer to Wilson, Sanders to Wilson.

29. Letters, Gilchrist to Wilson, Cowperthwait to Wilson.

30. Buck et al. to Board of Trustees.

110                                              OHIO HISTORY

women. However, the resignation of eight additional trustees left

the remaining twelve divided and uncertain as to how to proceed.

Therefore, at a series of meetings in May and June of 1978, the

board procrastinated.31

Deliberations were further complicated when the imbroglio

erupted in the public press. On June 13, the Cincinnati Times pub-

lished segments of the "serious charges against Dr. Beckwith" made

by Drs. Buck and Wilson. The following day the Times joined by the

Enquirer and Commercial featured Dr. Beckwith's denouncements

of the "libelous and slanderous" accusations. These exchanges and

other newspaper reports centered on the possibility of financial

irregularities and added little to the women's question. On June 15,

Dr. Beckwith instituted a $10,000 libel suit against Drs. Buck, Wil-

son, and Owens.³²

Under such emotional circumstances, the board met on June 18.

Conflicting resolutions were presented. One stated that it would be

"detrimental ... to admit females." A substitute resolution asserted

that matriculants "be admitted . . . without distinction of sex" but

with separate lectures on certain "delicate" topics. Unable or un-

willing to support either position, the board after much maneuver-

ing deferred a decision until March, 1879. While the substantive

question was sidestepped, procedural votes suggest that the board

was evenly divided.³³ A trustee later confessed that they "were in

doubt as to the wisdom and propriety" of which course to follow. As

"business men," they were "generally unacquainted with the real

merits of such questions" and "hesitated when disaster and ruin

were predicted."³⁴

Having postponed a verdict on coeducation until the following

year, the board next considered the seething hostility among the

professors. As with the women's issue, they followed an erratic and

contradictory course. On July 1, Dr. Slosson, spokesman for the

Beckwith group, introduced a plan removing Drs. Buck and Wilson

from the faculty and adding five new professors. In response to this

opportunity to clear the air, the board temporized and inexplicably

accepted Dr. Wilson's resignation but refused Dr. Buck's.³⁵ A Cincin-

nati paper interpreted these actions as a "triumpth for Dr. Beckwith

31. Board of Trustees Minutes, May 28, June 3, June 11, 1878, 72-77.

32. Cincinnati Daily Times, June 13, 14, 1878; Cincinnati Enquirer, June 14,

1878; Cincinnati Commercial, June 14, 16, 1878.

33. Board of Trustees Minutes, June 18, 1878, 78-80.

34. Cincinnati Commercial, March 3, 1881.

35. Board of Trustees Minutes, July 1, 1878, 81-83.

112                                               OHIO HISTORY

women."³⁸ Frustrated by this delaying tactic, the faculty took mat-

ters into its own hands and published the annual announcement for

1879-80 which proclaimed that "hereafter all properly qualified

matriculants, without distinction of sex, will be admitted."³⁹

Presented with this fait accompli, the board met on July 22 "for

the purpose of considering the action of the faculty relative to the

admission of Females" but again was hopelessly divided and unable

to assert control. After several unsuccessful attempts to censure the

faculty for "infringement of the privileges and duties" of the trus-

tees, the board appointed a special investigating committee. After

deliberating for a week, the committee submitted two conflicting

reports - one harshly criticizing the professors, demanding a facul-

ty reorganization, and recommending that the annual announce-

ments be destroyed, and the other upholding the faculty and assert-

ing that in the absence of bylaws to the contrary the admission of

students was a prerogative of the professors. The board divided

evenly on both reports, and as a result neither was adopted.⁴⁰ Thus,

women were admitted to Pulte by the faculty without sanction of the

Board of Trustees. In this unusual and perhaps unprecedented

fashion, the controversy was finally resolved.

The victory for the supporters of women was less than complete.

In order to gain the necessary faculty support and the reluctant

acquiesence of the trustees, Drs. Buck and Wilson had compromised

the principle for which they had so long fought. Coeducation would

not mean total integration of all classes at Pulte. While promising

"women advantages equal, in every respect, to those enjoyed by

men," the new announcement added vaguely that "instruction will

be given in some departments separately, whenever desirable or

necessary."⁴¹ In actual practice, the sexes would attend segregated

classes in anatomy, obstetrics, and gynecology as well as some of the

clinics.⁴²

In the fall of 1879 seven women were enrolled at Pulte. Observing

that three were college graduates and two public school teachers,

the Cincinnati Enquirer proclaimed extravagantly that their qual-

38. Board of Trustees Minutes, March 17, 1879, 94-95.

39. Annual Announcement of Pulte Medical College ... Session of 1879-80 (Cincin-

nati, 1879), 13-14.

40. Board of Trustees Minutes, July 22, 29, 1879, 95-108.

41. Annual Announcement of Pulte Medical College ... Session of 1879-80 (Cincin-

nati, 1879), 17.

42. Annual Announcement of Pulte Medical College ... Session of 1880-81 (Cincin-

nati, 1880), 13.

Homeopathy & Sexual Equality                                  113

ifications were better than "any class of male students in any

medical college."⁴³ The following year, 1880-81, saw eight female

metriculants, three of whom received M.D. degrees. Dr. Buck

announced with satisfaction: "The joint medical education of men

and women ... is no longer an experiment."⁴⁴ By 1883-84 women

comprised 31 percent of the students and 19 percent of the

graduates.⁴⁵ While women reported that they were welcomed with

"courtesy and respect," the faculty asserted that their presence had

improved "general deportment" and that they had displayed a "high

degree of scholarship."⁴⁶ As evidence, in 1880 Miss Stella Hunt re-

ceived the "prize for the best examination in physiology," thus cast-

ing doubt on a famous obstetrician's comment that woman "has a

head almost too small for intellect but just big enough to love."⁴⁷

Although the controversy over the admission of women to Pulte

was eventually settled in favor of common sense and justice, the

evidence suggests that sexual barriers at irregular medical institu-

tions could be much more rigid than scholars have assumed. A

majority of the faculty and trustees at a homeopathic college were as

reluctant to embrace sexual equality as were their counterparts at

most orthodox schools. Pulte's Dr. Beckwith was as adamant in his

antifeminist stance as was Harvard's Dr. Clarke. Moreover, even

when coeducation was adopted, it involved, as elsewhere, equal but

separate instruction. Before generalizing about the medical educa-

tion of women in nineteenth-century America, historians must re-

search more completely homeopathic and other irregular medical

schools. In fact, a thorough reexamination of medical coeducation

seems necessary.

43. Ibid., 18-21; Cincinnati Enquirer, March 24, 1880.

44. Annual Announcement of Pulte Medical College ... Session of 1881-82 (Cincin-

nati, 1881), 20-23; Cincinnati Commercial, March 3, 1881.

45. Annual Announcement of Pulte Medical College... Session of 1884-85 (Cincin-

nati, 1884), 18-21.

46. Cincinnati Enquirier, March 21, 1880.

47. Ibid, March 5, 1880; C.D. Meigs, Lecture on Some of the Distinctive Character-

istics of the Female, Delivered Before the Class of the Jefferson Medical College, Janu-

ary, 1847 (Philadelphia, 1847), 62. For examples of examinations written by one

woman graduate of Pulte, see Examination Papers of Mary Wolfe, Pulte Medical

College, Class of 1883 (Cincinnati, 1883).