How Homeopathy Came to New Hampshire, 1840–1860
David K. Nartonis

The author would like to thank Donna-Belle Garvin, who was more than the editor of this article; she was an enthusiastic fellow-researcher.

WHEN THE HEALING SYSTEM KNOWN AS homeopathy first came to New Hampshire 170 years ago, it was more a religious system than a science. Yet its first practitioners were almost all trained in conventional medicine. Homeopathy spread through the professional and family relationships of these physicians, at first to a number of small towns in Hillsborough County and then to some of New Hampshire’s larger cities. Changes in the nature of homeopathy, from a spiritual to a material system, were already beginning to take place and paved the way for the quite different homeopathy that exists today.

Homeopathy is a system of healing with extremely dilute medicine. Its name, homos (Greek for “like”) and pathos (Greek for “suffering”), derives from the fact that, before they are diluted, the plant extracts or minerals that are used to make this medicine would produce in a healthy person the same symptoms as the ailment to be cured. In other words, “like cures, like.”1

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, during a recent year American adults spent $2.9 billion purchasing homeopathic medicine.2 Eighteen New Hampshire drug stores and pharmacies, including three in Concord, currently advertise these remedies.3 Users of these medicines today explain homeopathic cures in many ways: by the body’s innate capacity to heal itself, the special power of small doses of medicine, a vital force that animates living things, quantum physics, undiscovered energies, and hidden properties of water. This was not, however, the way that homeopathy first came to New Hampshire.

Homeopathy (the older spelling is homoeopathy) has been a continuous part of New Hampshire medical history since around 1840 when Moses Atwood opened a homeopathic practice in Francestown.4 This was fifteen years after the first convert to homeopathy arrived from Europe and four years after the German book that started this new movement was first published in America.5

In homeopathy’s earliest form, as described in 1810 in the Organon of the Homoeopathic Art, physician and chemist Samuel Christian Hahnemann of Saxony defined disease as a derangement of the spirit that animates and governs the human body. According to him, disease can be cured only by the positive influence of the doctor’s spirit, brought to bear on the patient either by mesmerism (what we today call hypnotism) or by swallowing or inhaling properly diluted substances to carry the spiritual power of the doctor into contact with the nervous system of the patient. By diluting ingredients that would otherwise produce symptoms of the ailment, Hahnemann echoed a long tradition of seeing spiritual power in similarity.6

To prepare the medicines, Hahnemann recommended first adding a small amount of an appropriate substance to nearly one hundred times as much alcohol, water, or milk sugar, and then shaking or grinding the mixture twice. A minute amount of the result is diluted again in the same way, and the procedure of alternately adding and mixing is repeated a total of thirty times.7 According to Hahnemann, this process gradually imbues the homeopathic medicine with the doctor’s healthy spirit and, thus empowered, the medicine stimulates the patient’s own spirit to return to its healthy state.

In Hahnemann’s view the only way to know which substance to dilute is by previous experiment.8 An early discovery that a conventional medicine for fever (cinchona) produced fever when taken by a healthy individual led Hahnemann to begin seeking other such effects.9 Then as now, practitioners of homeopathy rely on a list of these special substances and the symptoms they produce in healthy people. For this purpose the Third American Edition (1848) of the Organon recommended the Manual of Homoeopathic Medicine by George Heinrich Gottlieb Jahr.10 According to Jahr, homeopathic drugs, “given their spiritual nature, [can be] used to cure both bodily affections as well as certain moral and religious weaknesses.” Thus he included in his list special substances for curing non-medical problems such as “despair of eternal salvation . . . despair of eternal happiness . . . absence of religious feeling [and] irresistible desire to blaspheme and swear.”11

Homeopathy versus Conventional Medicine

Because the mild, non-toxic medicines of homeopathy, typically used one at a time, produce no side effects and because they proved effective during midnineteenth-century yellow fever and Asiatic cholera epidemics in America, these medicines quickly became a popular alternative to conventional treatments such as blood-letting and dosing with large amounts and combinations of powerful chemicals. Not surprisingly, the diluted medicines were especially popular for children.12

Conflict naturally broke out between advocates of conventional medicine and those supporting the new system. As early as 1842, the noted physician Oliver Wendell Holmes gave a talk on “homeopathy and its kindred delusions” to the Massachusetts Medical Society. To better defend their system, homeopaths organized the first national medical organization, the American Institute of Homeopathy, in 1844. In response, the American Medical Association, formed in 1847, forbid its members from consulting with homeopaths or treating a patient who was also under homeopathic care. When the Civil War broke out in 1860, conventional physicians convinced the Army Military Board not to admit homeopaths into the Army Medical Corps.13

The homeopaths countered this opposition by warning citizens about the side effects of the remedies carried house-to-house by conventional “Dr. Dosem”:

His saddle-bags lay on the seat by his side,
Gazing up in his face with a horrible grin,
As if saying, “Ha! ha! you and I, doctor, know
What death and destruction are lurking within!14

New Hampshire’s Homeopathic Pioneers

In 1825 American doctor Hans Birch Gram, having become a convinced homeopathic physician during a stay in Denmark, returned to New York.15 That same year Constantine Hering of Saxony, where Hahnemann lived and worked, converted to homeopathy, later emigrating to South America and, in 1833, to Pennsylvania where he opened a school of homeopathy. Through his publication in 1835 of The Homoeopathist, or, Domestic Physician, Hering popularized the new healing system and did more than anyone else to establish homeopathy in America.16

About the time Hering arrived in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire native Samuel Gregg carried the system from New York to Boston. Born in New Boston in 1799, Gregg had earned a medical degree from Dartmouth in 1825. In 1833 he was living and working in Medford, Massachusetts, when members of a local family who had earlier benefited from homeopathy in New York convinced him to take his consumptive daughter there for treatment. His resulting contact with Gram’s disciple, Federal Vanderburgh, interested Gregg in the new system, and in 1838 he converted fully to homeopathy.17

Two years later, Moses Atwood carried homeopathy from the Boston area to south-central New Hampshire where it spread, at first, through a web of professional and personal relationships. At the beginning of his career, Atwood studied conventional medicine with Israel Herrick of Lyndeborough and with Luther Farley of Francestown, where he later settled.18 After studying with Gregg in Medford, Atwood practiced homeopathy in Francestown (1840–44), in Nashua (1844–45), in Concord (1845–46), in Manchester with his nephew Aaron

H. Atwood (1846–48), in Concord again (1849), and finally in Gregg’s own hometown of New Boston (1849–50).19 During homeopathy’s first decade in New Hampshire, Hahnemann’s system spread mainly to these and neighboring towns, most of them in Hillsborough County. In 1843 Atwood, while practicing homeopathy in Francestown, influenced James Peterson, a physician in the adjoining town of Weare, to convert his medical practice to homeopathy.

Peterson, who had earned a medical degree in Plattsburg, New York, had practiced traditional medicine in Weare since 1824.20 That same year, Dr. Joshua F. Whittle, Peterson’s nephew and student, moved his newly established homeopathic practice from Weare to Nashua after graduating from Castleton Medical College.21

The following year German immigrant Augustus Frank brought homeopathy from Boston to Concord, where he worked from 1844 to 1846; he then practiced briefly in Manchester (1847) and Portsmouth (1849).22 Also in 1844, Herrick, Atwood’s teacher in Lyndeborough, and Simeon I. Bard in Francestown converted their practices to the new system.23 After earning a medical degree from Dartmouth in 1820, Herrick had practiced medicine in New Hampshire towns for twenty-five years before converting to homeopathy.24

Alpheus Morrill began a long homeopathic career in Concord in 1849. Morrill was born in Canterbury in 1808, graduated from Dartmouth Medical School in 1832, and converted to homeopathy in 1843 in Ohio where he practiced medicine before moving back to New Hampshire. One local historian called Morrill “the father of homeopathy” in Concord because “his skill as a physician and his long residence at the capital made his name a household word.”25

Only in 1849 did homeopathy finally reach the New Hampshire seaboard as Augustus Frank practiced briefly and H. Zimmerman practiced for three years in Portsmouth. Abner B. Bennett and Emil Richter began longer practices in Portsmouth in 1850, and Alfred W. Pike settled in Dover that same year. Bennett, a Dartmouth Medical School graduate, held the position of City Physician during the Civil War years.26

In 1850 Daniel White began a short-lived homeopathic practice in Keene, and Oliver A. Woodbury began a long career in Nashua. Although little is known of White, he later described himself as a member of the New Hampshire, New York, and Missouri Medical Societies. He converted to homeopathy about the time he moved to New Hampshire.27 Woodbury was born in Danvers, Massachusetts, in 1818 and earned an M.D. from Bowdoin College in 1848.28 By 1851, Congregational minister John Le Bosquet was practicing homeopathic medicine in Greenfield, another community adjoining Francestown.29

In June 1851, a group of homeopathic physicians—all but one from Hillsborough County—met in the Concord office of Alpheus Morrill and voted to seek state recognition of their medical fraternity.30 When two years later, in 1853, the New Hampshire legislature granted their request, the eight official incorporators again included just two beyond Hillsborough County— Morrill himself and Alfred W. Pike from Dover.31 Moses Atwood, who was so influential in bringing homeopathy to the state, did not live to see this occasion. He died in 1850 in New Boston. Although the records of the Homoeopathic Medical Society burned in 1882, we know that the 1851 organizational meeting in Concord took place because Daniel White reported it in the Homoeopathic Advocate and Guide to Health, a newspaper he published in Keene during the brief time he lived and practiced there (1851–52).32

Alpheus Morrill, in whose office the founders met, served as president of the New Hampshire Homoeopathic Medical Society from its incorporation until 1870.33 Morrill is notable today because of his small, surviving library of homeopathic publications, ranging from 1838 to 1849, which has provided further insight into the beliefs and practices of the first homeopathic physicians in the state.34 Morrill is also remembered as the physician who, in 1853, advised his first wife’s cousin Mary Baker Eddy on homeopathy. At the time, Eddy was a young widow living with her sister in Sanbornton Bridge (later Tilton) and exploring this new system as a way to improve her own chronic ill-health. In retrospect, Eddy recalled her experience with homeopathy as important preparation for her own Christian Science approach to healing.35

Religion or Science?

White’s Homoeopathic Advocate and the Morrill publications together provide evidence that the New Hampshire founders were solidly committed to the highly diluted medicines recommended by Hahnemann in the Organon of the Homoeopathic Art.36 However, these sources also indicate that the New Hampshire founders were less sure about what side to take in a growing battle between Hahnemann’s spiritual and newer material explanations of the homeopathic effect.37

While a long article that editor White reprinted from the American Journal of Homoeopathy defended Hahnemann’s law of “like curing like” and his prescription of extremely dilute doses, its author admitted that Hahnemann’s explanations were vague.38 In fact, Hahnemann’s appeal to ambiguous, spiritual causes of health and disease and Jahr’s application of homeopathic methods to moral and religious ills has led one historian to view Hahnemann’s homeopathy as a nature religion rather than a science.39 Moreover for some American consumers of homeopathic medicine, “the basic doctrines of Hahnemann were nothing less than articles of faith . . . emphasizing the spiritual (high dilution) aspects of homeopathy . . . associating healing with evidence of divine purpose [and] the use of religious metaphors to describe the healing processes.”40

By contrast, most American practitioners of homeopathy were graduates of medical schools that had long since rejected grand, religious theories like Hahnemann’s in favor of practical knowledge of what cured and what did not. As the editors of the New-Hampshire Journal of Medicine complained in 1850, homeopathy as developed by Hahnemann appealed only to those “who delight in German mysticisms.”41 As a result, a growing number of American converts to homeopathy viewed Hahnemann’s explanations of his system as old-fashioned and adopted his medicines only because of their relative success and their lack of negative side effects. Some converts experimented with less dilute versions of the homeopathic medicines, and some used them together with conventional treatments.42 A few also attempted to formulate purely material explanations of homeopathic healing—patterning them after the explanations of conventional medicine that most converts had learned in school.43 According to one historian, what gradually became the majority of homeopathic doctors “continued to admit the efficacy of Hahnemann’s attenuations [but] interpreted the dynamization principle [dilution and shaking] as . . . ‘[t]he active principle of the drug being set free by the destruction of matter.’”44

The New Hampshire pioneers were unsure about what side to take in the battle between spiritual and material explanations of homeopathy; one local physician, Oliver Woodbury of Nashua, rejected them both. At their organizational meeting in Concord, the founders of the New Hampshire Homoeopathic Medical Society had pledged to support White’s Homoeopathic Advocate. Woodbury fulfilled this pledge by contributing a two-part article to the August and September issues that year. In his article, he attempted an improvement on Hahnemann’s explanations by making mind (pure and simple) the power by which homeopathic medicines cured disease.45

Rapid Growth in New Hampshire, 1851–1860

Despite disagreements, the practice of homeopathy grew rapidly in New Hampshire during its second decade there.46 Between 1851 and 1860, the number of homeopathic physicians in the state grew from eleven to forty-seven. While there were larger numbers in the more populous mid-western states, on the eve of the Civil War the states with the most homeopathic physicians per thousand inhabitants were Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Connecticut—in that order.47

As the number of homeopathic physicians increased during the second decade, material explanations and integration of homeopathy with other healing modes steadily gained acceptance in New Hampshire, as elsewhere. Do-it-yourself manuals, one of the most popular published in 1859 by a Concord physician, the German immigrant Ferdinand Gustav Oehme, took the practice out of the hands of homeopathic doctors.48 Entrepreneurs began to sell ready-to-use homeopathic medicines as kits in drug stores and through the mail.49 As a result, the pioneers’ original loyalty to the Hahnemann system as a whole quickly became a minority position. To this day, how to explain the healing effect of homeopathic medicine continues to be debated.


DAVID K. NARTONIS is an independent scholar who has published previously in Historical New Hampshire about the New Divinity movement within the Congregational church (Spring/Summer 2000). Both of Dr. Nartonis’s articles relate to his ongoing study of the intellectual and cultural milieu of Christian Science founder Mary Baker Eddy.

1. Physicians who practiced traditional medicine were often called allopaths (from the Greek word for “other”) to distinguish them from homeopaths (from the Greek word for “like”). Allopaths prescribed medicines that would produce effects contrary to those of the ailment to be cured.
2. National Center for Health Statistics, “Costs of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) and Frequency of Visits to CAM Practitioners: United States, 2007,” National Health Statistics Reports, Number 18, July 30, 2009, p. 3.;NCHS/data/nhsr/ nhsr018.pdf (accessed January 27, 2010).
3. (accessed January 23, 2010).
4. William Harvey King, ed., History of Homoeopathy and Its Institutions in America, 4 vols. (New York: Lewis Publishing Co., 1905), 1:289; D. Hamilton Hurd, comp., History of Hillsborough County, New Hampshire (Philadelphia: J. W. Lewis and Co., 1885), 506.
5. Joseph F. Kett, The Formation of the American Medical Profession: The Role of Institutions, 1780–1860 (Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1968), 137; Thomas Lindsey Bradford, Homoeopathic Bibliography of the United States, from the Year 1825 to the Year 1892, Inclusive (Philadelphia: Boericke and Tafel, 1892), 117; Martin Kaufman, Homeopathy in America: The Rise and Fall of a Medical Heresy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971), 23–30.
6. Samuel Hahnemann, Organon of Homoeopathic Medicine, 3rd American ed., trans. C. Hering (New York: William Radde, 1848), 99–102, 225–29; also Kett, Formation of the American Medical Profession, 141–55, 192.
7. Hahnemann, Organon, 217. 8. Ibid., 99–107.
9. John Duffy, The Healers: A History of American Medicine (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1976), 112–13.
10. Hahnemann, Organon, 174; Bradford, Homoeopathic Bibliography, 169–73.
11. John S. Haller, The History of American Homeopathy: The Academic Years, 1820–1935 (New York: Haworth Press, 2005), 245.
12. Naomi Rogers, An Alternative Path: The Making and Remaking of Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital of Philadelphia (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1998), 9.
13. Kaufman, Homeopathy in America, 1–14, 110–15; Duffy, The Healers, 115–19.
14. “Dr. Dosem’s Saddle-Bags” appeared in a small magazine, The Pellet, in 1872 and was quoted in J. Worth Estes and David M. Goodman, Changing Humors of Portsmouth: The Medical Biography of an American Town, 1623–1983 (Boston: Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, 1986), 80–82.
15. Kett, Formation of the American Medical Profession, 130–37; Bradford, Homoeopathic Bibliography, 117; Egbert Cleave, Cleave’s Biographical Cyclopaedia of Homoeopathic Physicians and Surgeons (Philadelphia: Galaxy Publishing Co., 1873), 414–15. 27.
16. Haller, History of American Homeopathy, 52; Cleave, Biographical Cyclopaedia, 7–9.
17. “Homoeopathy in Massachusetts,” in Transactions of the World’s Homoeopathic Convention, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Sherman and Co., 1880) [henceforth Transactions], 2:641; Haller, History of American Homeopathy, 43–44.
18. Elliott C. Cogswell, History of New Boston, New Hampshire (Boston: Geo. C. Rand and Avery, 1864), 213.
19. Transactions, 565; King, History of Homoeopathy, 1:289; Hurd, History of Hillsborough County, 506; D. Donovan and Jacob A. Woodward, The History of the Town of Lyndeborough, New Hampshire, 1735–1905 (Lyndeborough, N.H.: By the Town, 1906), 633; New-England Mercantile Union Business Directory: Part 2— New Hampshire (New York: Pratt and Co., 1849), 77.
20. William Little, The History of Weare, New Hampshire, 1735–1888 (Lowell, Mass.: S. W. Huse and Co., 1888), 97.
21. Transactions, 565–66; King, History of Homoeopathy, 1:290; Cleave, Biographical Cyclopaedia, 335; Little, History of Weare, 631.
22. Transactions, 565; King, History of Homoeopathy, 1:292; James O. Lyford, ed., History of Concord, New Hampshire, 2 vols. (Concord, N.H.: Rumford Press, 1903), 2:920; Estes and Goodman, Changing Humors of Portsmouth, 82.
23. Transactions, 567; King, History of Homoeopathy, 1:290, 293; Warren R. Cochrane and George K. Wood, History of Francestown, N.H. (Nashua, N.H.: James H. Barker, 1895), 498.
24. Hurd, History of Hillsborough County, 506.
25. Lyford, History of Concord, 2:922.
26. Transactions, 567; King, History of Homoeopathy, 1:292, 293; Estes and Goodman, The Changing Humors of Portsmouth, 82–83; George T. Chapman, Sketches of the Alumni of Dartmouth College, from the First Graduation in 1771 to the Present Time, with a Brief History of the Institution (Cambridge, Mass.: Riverside Press, 1867), 365; Alfred W. Pike, Dover, 1850 United States Federal Census.
27. The Homoeopathic Advocate and Guide to Health 1 (April 1851): 11; Daniel White, A New and Accurate Method for Diagnosing Pulmonary Consumption (Springfield, Mass.: Bailhache and Baker, 1858), back cover; also Frank H. Whitcomb, Vital Statistics of the Town of Keene, New Hampshire (Keene, N.H.: Sentinel Printing Co., 1905), 240. Issues of the Advocate can be found in the library of the New York Academy of Medicine, the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Boston, Mass., and the library of the The New Hampshire Historical Society, Concord, N.H.
28. General Catalogue of Bowdoin College and the Medical School of Maine: A Biographical Record of Alumni and Officers, 1794–1950 (Brunswick, Me.: President and Trustees of Bowdoin College, 1950).
29. Homoeopathic Advocate 1 (August 1851): 80; Hurd, History of Hillsborough County, 336; The Congregational Year-Book, 1888 . . . (Boston: Congregational Publishing Society, 1888), 32–33.
30. Homoeopathic Advocate 1 (May and August 1851): 41, 65.
31. Laws of the State of New Hampshire Passed November Session, 1852 (Concord: Butterfield and Hill, 1853), 1290; Journals of the Senate and House of Representatives, November Session, 1852 (Concord: Butterfield and Hill, 1853), 155, 158, 233, 400–401, 428, 497–98.
32. Homoeopathic Advocate 1 (May 1851): 41. The loss of the early records is reported in Lyford, History of Concord, 2:922. White subsequently edited other short-lived homeopathic periodicals in Springfield, Massachusetts, and in St. Louis, Missouri, where he eventually settled. Homoeopathic Advocate 1 (February 1852): 160; Bradford, Homoeopathic Bibliography, 287, 315–18; obituary in St. Louis Post Dispatch, January 30, 1892.
33. Cleave, Biographical Cyclopaedia, 73–74.
34. This small library of homeopathic publications is bound together into a single 678-page volume and cataloged in the New Hampshire State Library as 615.53 E93 P2. The volume is inscribed “E. Morrill,” presumably for Alpheus’s son Ezekiel, who, though just a boy at the date of the publications, later became a homeopathic physician himself. See Ezra S. Stearns, Genealogical and Family History of the State of New Hampshire, 4 vols. (New York: Lewis Publishing Co., 1908), 2:717.
35. Annie Morrill Smith, Morrill Kindred in America, 2 vols. (New York: Grafton Press, 1931), 2:168; Robert Peel, Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Discovery (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1966), 111; Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health, With Key to the Scriptures (Boston, Mass.: First Church of Christ, Scientist, 1994), 152.
36. Kett, Formation of the American Medical Profession, 137; Bradford, Homoeopathic Bibliography, 117; Kaufman, Homeopathy in America, 23–30.
37. Haller, History of American Homeopathy, 7, 141.
38. Homoeopathic Advocate 1 (April, October 1851): 13, 99, 108. Also, as found in the Morrill volume, Samuel Hahnemann, The Spirit of the Homoeopathic Doctrine, trans. Geddes M. Scott (London: Longman et al., 1838), 7; Thomas R. Everest, A Popular View of Homoeopathy, American ed., ann. and intro. by A. Gerald Hull (New York: William Radde, 1842), 37, 39, 56.
39. Catherine L. Albanese, Nature Religion in America: From the Algonkian Indians to the New Age (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 123.
40. Haller, History of American Homeopathy, 245–46; Albanese, Nature Religion, 81–82.
41. “Homoeopathy,” New-Hampshire Journal of Medicine 1 (December 1850): 134.
42. Haller, History of American Homeopathy, 4, 35–36; Rogers, An Alternative Path, 6–7; John Harley Warner, “Orthodoxy and Otherness: Homeopathy and Regular Medicine in Nineteenth-Century Medicine,” in Culture, Knowledge and Healing: Historical Perspectives of Homeopathic Medicine in Europe and North America, ed. Robert Jutte et al. (Sheffield, England: European Association for the History of Medicine and Health Publications, 1998), 12–16; John Harley Warner, The Therapeutic Perspective: Medical Practice, Knowledge, and Identity in America, 1820–1885 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986), 20–21; Harris L. Coulter, Divided Legacy: The Conflict between Homoeopathy and the American Medical Association, Vol. 3, Science and Ethics in American Medicine 1800–1914, 2nd ed. (Berkeley, Calif.: North Atlantic Books, 1982), 328–91; Kaufman, Homeopathy in America, 113–24.
43. Haller, History of American Homeopathy, 82, 122; Homoeopathic Advocate 1 (April 1851): 5–7. Also, as found in the Morrill volume, B. F. Joslin, Evidences of the Power of Small Doses and Attenuated Medicines (Nashua N.H.: Murray and Kimball, 1848), 7–8, 16–17, 23, 27; B. F. Joslin, The Law of Cure (Boston: Otis Clapp, 1849), 11, 13–14; G. Lingen, “On the Homoeopathic Doses of Medicine,” Homoeopathic Journal [n.d.], 52.
44. Haller, History of American Homeopathy, 122.
45. Homoeopathic Advocate 1 (August 1851): 65–68, 70, 82; Kett, Formation of the American Medical Profession, 147–48; Haller, History of American Homeopathy, 246; Albanese, Nature Religion, 111, 133; John S. Haller, American Medicine in Transition, 1840–1910 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1918), 132–42, 250–51.
46. Henry M. Smith, Smith’s Homoeopathic Directory of the United States (New York: John T. S. Smith, 1857), 1, 27, 53–54.
47. Haller, History of American Homeopathy, 41–67; Coulter, Divided Legacy, 3:101–3, 108–10; Rogers, An Alternative Path, 3–4.
48. Cleave, Biographical Cyclopaedia, 356; Ferdinand G. Oehme, The Homoeopathic Domestic Physician (Concord, N.H.: E. C. Eastman; Boston: O. Clapp, 1859).
49. Martin Kaufman, “Homeopathy in America: The Rise and Fall and Persistence of a Medical Heresy,” in Norman Gevitz, ed., Other Healers: Unorthodox Medicine in America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988), 106–7.