Chapter IV: Part 4

Homicide is excusable and not criminal at all when committed either by misadventure or in self-defence. In the former case the homicide is excused; where a man in the course of doing some lawful work, accidentally and without intention kills another, e.g. shooting at a mark and undesignedly hitting and killing a man. The act must be strictly lawful, and death by misadventure in unlawful sports is not a case of excusable homicide. Homicide in self-defence is excusable when the slayer is himself in immediate danger of death, and has done all he could to avoid the assault. Accordingly, if he strikes and kills his assailant after the assault is over, this is not excusable homicide. But if the assault has been premeditated, as in the ease of a duel, the death of either antagonist has under English law always been held to be murder and not excusable homicide. The excuse of self-defence covers the case in which a person in defence of others whom it is his duty to protect--children, wife, master, &c.--kills an assailant. It has been considered doubtful whether the plea of self-defence is available to one who has himself provoked a fray, in the course of which he is so pressed by his antagonist that his only resource is to kill him.

In English law the term "manslaughter" is applied to those forms of homicide which though neither justifiable nor excusable are attended by alleviating circumstances which bring them short of wilful murder. The offence is not defined by statute, but only by judicial rulings. Its punishment is as a maximum penal servitude for life, and as a minimum a fine or recognizances to be of good behaviour. The quantum of punishment between the limits above stated is in the discretion of the court, and not, as under continental codes, with fixed minima; and the offence includes acts and omissions of very varying gravity, from acts which only by the charitable appreciation of a jury fall short of wilful murder, to acts or omissions which can only technically be described as criminal, e.g. where one of two persons engaged in poaching, by pure accident gets caught in a hedge so that his gun goes off and kills his fellow-poacher. This may be described as an extreme instance of "constructive crime."

There are two main forms of "manslaughter":--

1. "Voluntary" homicide under grave and sudden provocation or on a sudden quarrel in the heat of passion, without the slayer taking undue advantage or acting in an unusual manner. The substance of the alleviation of guilt lies in the absence of time for cool reflection or the formation of a premeditated design to kill. Under English law the provocation must be by acts and not by words or gestures, and must be serious and not trivial, and the killing must be immediately after provocation and while the slayer has lost his self-control in consequence of the provocation. The provocation need not be by assault or violence, and perhaps the best-recognized example is the slaying by a husband of a man found committing adultery with the slayer's wife. In the case of a sudden quarrel it does not matter who began or provoked the quarrel. This used to be called "chance medley."

2. "Involuntary" homicide as a result of great rashness or gross negligence in respect of matters involving danger to human life, e.g. in driving trains or vehicles, or in dealing with dangerous weapons, or in performing surgical operations, or in taking care of the helpless.

The innumerable modes in which criminal liability for killing others has been adjudged under the English definitions of murder and manslaughter cannot be here stated, and can only be studied by reference to the judicial decisions collected and discussed in _Russell on Crimes_ and other English text-books, and in the valuable work by Mr J. D. Mayne on the criminal law of India, in which the English common law rulings are stated side by side with the terms and interpretations of the Indian penal code. Much labour has been expended by many jurists in efforts to create a scientific and acceptable classification of the various forms of unlawful homicide which shall properly define the cases which should be punishable by law and the appropriate punishment. Their efforts have resulted in the establishment in almost every state except the United Kingdom of statutory definitions of the crime, beginning with the French penal code and going down to the criminal code of Japan. In the case of England, as a result of the labours of Sir James Stephen, a code bill was submitted to parliament in 1878. In 1879 a draft code was prepared by Blackburn, Lush and Barry, and was presented to parliament. It was founded on and prepared with Sir J. Stephen, and is a revision of his digest of the criminal law.

After defining homicide and culpable homicide, the draft code (cl. 174) declares culpable homicide to be murder in the following cases: (a) if the offender means to cause the death of the person killed; (b) if the offender means to cause to the person killed any bodily injury which is known to the offender to be likely to cause death, and if the offender, whether he does or does not mean to cause death, is reckless whether death ensues or not; (c) if the offender means to cause death or such bodily injury as aforesaid to one person, so that if that person be killed the offender would be guilty of murder, and by accident or mistake the offender kills another person though he does not mean to hurt the person killed; (d) if the offender for any unlawful object does an act which he knows or ought to have known to be likely to cause death, and thereby kills any person, though he may have desired that his object should be effected without hurting any one.

Further (cl. 175), it is murder (whether the offender means or not death to ensue, or knows or not that death is likely to ensue) in the following cases:--"(a) if he means to inflict grievous bodily injury for the purpose of facilitating the commission of any of the offences hereinafter mentioned, or the flight of the offender upon the commission or attempted commission thereof, and death ensues from his violence; (b) if he administers any stupefying thing for either of the purposes aforesaid and death ensues from the effects thereof; (c) if he by any means wilfully stops the breath of any person for either of the purposes aforesaid and death ensues from such stopping of the breath." The following are the offences referred to:--"high treason and other offences against the king's authority, piracy and offences deemed to be piracy, escape or rescue from prison or lawful custody, resisting lawful apprehension, murder, rape, forcible abduction, robbery, burglary, arson." Cl. 176 reduces culpable homicide to manslaughter if the person who causes death does so "in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation"; and "any _wrongful act or insult_ of such a nature as to be sufficient to deprive any ordinary person of the power of self-control may be provocation if the offender acts upon it on the sudden, and before there has been time for his passion to cool. Whether any particular wrongful act or insult amounts to provocation and whether the offender was deprived of self-control shall be questions of fact; but no one shall be deemed to give provocation by doing that which he had a legal right to do, or which the offender incited him to do in order to provide an excuse for killing him or doing grievous bodily harm to any person." Further, "an arrest shall not necessarily reduce the offence from murder to manslaughter because an arrest was illegal, but if the illegality was known to the offender it may be evidence of provocation"; (cl. 177) "culpable homicide not amounting to murder is manslaughter."

The definitions embodied in these clauses though not yet accepted by the British legislature, have in substance been embodied in the criminal codes of Canada (1892 ss. 227-230), New Zealand (1893, ss. 163-166), Queensland (1899, ss. 300-305), and Western Australia (1901, ss. 275-280).

From the point of view of civil as distinct from criminal responsibility homicide does not by the common law give any cause of action against the person causing the death of another in favour of the wife or blood relations of the deceased. In early law this was otherwise; and the wer or eric of the deceased came historically before the right of chief or state. But under English law the rights of relations, except by way of appeal for felony,[2] were swept aside in favour of the crown, on the principle that every homicide is presumed felonious (murder) unless the contrary is proved, and that in all cases of homicide not justifiable by law a forfeiture was incurred. The rights of the relatives were also defeated by application of the maxim "_actio personalis moritur cum persona_" ("a personal action dies with the person") to all proceedings for injury to the person or to reputation. In Scotland the old theory was preserved in the law as to assythement.

In England the law was altered at the instance of Lord Campbell in 1846 (9 & 10 V. c. 93) so as to give a right of a claim by the husband, wife, parent or child of a person killed by a wrongful (or even criminal) act, neglect or default by another which would have given the deceased if he had survived a cause of action against the wrongdoer. The compensation payable is what the surviving relative has lost by the death, and under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (in all cases to which it applies) the employer is liable even without negligence to compensate the dependants of an employee killed by an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment; and in such cases even if the death was due to serious and wilful misconduct by the employee, compensation is payable.

In the Indian penal code the definitions of murder are so drawn as to limit the offences to cases where it was actually intended to cause death or bodily injury by the acts or omissions of the slayer, and the definition of culpable homicide short of murder is so drawn as to exclude the forms of unintentional manslaughter due to neglect of duty, e.g. in the conduct of trains or ships or vehicles. This last omission was supplied in 1870. The Indian code does not treat as murder either duelling or helping Hindu widows to commit _suttee_ (s. 301, exception 5). In most of the British possessions in Asia and in east Africa the Indian definitions of homicide have been adopted. In the rest of the colonies, except South Africa, the law of homicide depends on the English common law as modified by colonial codes or statutes. In South Africa it rests mainly on the Roman Dutch law.

_Europe._--In European codes distinctions corresponding to those of the English law are drawn between premeditated and other forms of criminal homicide; but more elaborate distinctions are drawn between the degrees of deliberation or criminality manifested in the slaying, and the minimum or maximum penalty is varied accordingly.

In the French penal code voluntary homicide is called murder (_meurtre_, art. 295): but if committed with premeditation or lying in wait is styled _assassinat_ (_guet-apens_) (296-298). Poisoning (even if the poison is not fatal), is specially punished, as is parricide (on the lines of the obsolete English offence of petty treason), and infanticide, i.e. the killing of newly-born infants. Assassination, poisoning and parricide are at present capital offences; but a bill to abolish the death sentence has been laid before the French parliament.

The German code distinguishes between voluntary homicide which is done with deliberation and such homicide committed without deliberation (ss. 211, 212), and provides for mitigation of punishment where the slaying was provoked without fault in the slayer by any wrongful act or serious insult upon the slayer or his relatives by the slain (213). Parricide and infanticide are specially punished (214, 215), as is killing another person at his express and earnest request (216)--an offence which would in England be murder--and it is a separate offence to cause the death of another, the penalty being increased if the offender was peculiarly bound by office, calling or trade to use a care which he did not use (222).

The Italian code punishes as homicide those who with intention to kill cause the death of another (364). The death penalty is not imposed, but scales of punishment are provided to deal with aggravated forms of the offence. Thus _ergastolo_ (penal servitude for life) is the punishment in the case of homicide of ascendants and descendants, or with premeditation, or under the sole impulse of brutal ferocity or with gross cruelty (_gravi sevizie_), or by means of arson, inundation, drowning and certain other crimes, or to secure the gains or conceal the commission, or to secure immunity from the consequences, of another crime (366). Personal violence resulting in death inflicted without intention to kill is punishable _minore poena_ (368), and it is criminal to cause the death of another by imprudence, negligence or lack of skill in an art or profession (_imperitia nella propria arte o professione_), or by non-observance of regulations, orders or instructions.

The Spanish code has like those of Italy and France special punishments for parricide (417) and for assassination, in which are included killing for reward or promise of reward or by inundation (418), and for aiding another to commit suicide (421). Both the Italian and the Spanish codes afford a special mitigation to infanticide committed to avoid dishonour to the mother of the infant or her family.

_America._--The most notable difference between England and the United States in regard to the law on this subject is the recognition by state legislation of degrees in murder. English law treats all unlawful killing not reducible to manslaughter as of the same degree of guilt in law. American statutes seek to discriminate for purposes of punishment between the graver and the less culpable forms of murder. Thus an act of the legislature of Pennsylvania (22nd of April 1794) declares "all murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison or by lying in wait or by any other kind of wilful, deliberate and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate any arson, rape, robbery or burglary shall be deemed murder of the first degree; and all other kinds of murder shall be deemed murder of the second degree." This legislation has been copied or adopted in many if not most of the other states. There are also statutory degrees of manslaughter in the legislation of some of the states. The differences of legislation, coupled with the power of the jury in some states to determine the sentence, and the limitations on the right of the judges to comment on the testimony adduced, lead to very great differences between the administration of the law as to homicide in the two countries.

AUTHORITIES.--Stephen, _Hist. Cr. Law, Digest Criminal Law_; _Russell
on Crimes_ (7th ed., 1909); Archbold, _Criminal Pleading_ (23rd ed.,
1905); Bishop, _American Criminal Law_ (8th ed.); Pollock and
Maitland, _Hist. English Law_; Pike, _History of Crime_.
(W. F. C.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See Select Pleas of Crown, 1 (Selden Society Publ.); Pollock and
Maitland, _Hist. Eng. Law_, ii. 458, 476, 478.

[2] Appeals remained in the law till 1819, but were long before this
disused. In the middle ages they were used as a means of getting
compensation.

HOMILETICS (Gr. [Greek: homiletikos], from [Greek: homilein], to assemble together), in theology the application of the general principles of rhetoric to the specific department of public preaching. It may be further defined as the science that treats of the analysis, classification, preparation, composition and delivery of sermons. The formation during recent years of such lectureships as the "Lyman Beecher" course at Yale University has resulted in increased attention being given to homiletics, and the published volumes of this series are the best contribution to the subject.

The older literature is cited exhaustively in W. G. Blaikie, _For the
Work of the Ministry_ (1873); and D. P. Kidder, _Treatise on
Homiletics_ (1864).

HOMILY, a simple religious address, less elaborate than a sermon, and confining itself to the practical exposition of some ethical topic or some passage of Scripture. The word [Greek: homilia] from [Greek: homilein] ([Greek: homou, eilo]), meaning communion, intercourse, and especially interchange of thought and feeling by means of words (conversation), was early employed in classical Greek to denote the instruction which a philosopher gave to his pupils in familiar talk (Xenophon, _Memorabilia_, I. ii. 6. 15). This usage of the word was long preserved (Aelian, _Varia Historia_, iii. 19); and the [Greek: homilesas] of Acts xx. 11 may safely be taken to assign not only a free and informal but also a didactic character to the apostle Paul's discourse in the upper chamber of Troas, when "he talked a long while, even till break of day." That the "talk" on that occasion partook of the nature of the "exposition" ([Hebrew: drasha]) of Scripture, which, undertaken by a priest, elder or other competent person, had become a regular part of the service of the Jewish synagogue,[1] may also with much probability be assumed. The custom of delivering expositions or comments more or less extemporaneous on the lessons of the day at all events passed over soon and readily into the Christian Church, as may be gathered from the first _Apology_ (c. 67) of Justin Martyr, where we read that, in connexion with the practice of reading portions from the collected writings of the prophets and from the memoirs of the apostles, it had by that time become usual for the presiding minister to deliver a discourse in which "he admonishes the people, stirring them up to an imitation of the good works which have been brought before their notice." This discourse, from its explanatory character, and from the easy conversational manner of its delivery, was for a long time called [Greek: homilia] rather than [Greek: logos]: it was regarded as part of the regular duty of the bishop, but he could devolve it, if he thought fit, on a presbyter or deacon, or even on a layman. An early and well-known instance of such delegation is that mentioned by Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._ vi. 19) in the case of Origen (216 A.D.).[2] In course of time the exposition of the lesson for the day came more frequently to assume a more elaborate character, and to pass into the category of a [Greek: logos] or even [Greek: philosophia] or [Greek: philosophema]; but when it did so the fact was as far as possible denoted by a change of name, the word [Greek: homilia] being reserved for the expository or exegetical lecture as distinguished from the pulpit oration or sermon.[3] While the church of the 3rd and 4th centuries could point to a brilliant succession of great preachers, whose discourses were wont to be taken down in shorthand and circulated among the Christian public as edifying reading, it does not appear that the supply of ordinary homiletical talent kept pace with the rapidity of church extension throughout the Roman empire. In the smaller and remoter communities it not uncommonly happened that the minister was totally unqualified to undertake the work of preaching; and though, as is curiously shown by the case of Rome (Sozomen, _Hist. Eccl._ vii. 19), the regular exposition of the appointed lessons was by no means regarded as part of the necessary business of a church, it was generally felt to be advisable that some provision should be made for the public instruction of congregations. Even in Jerome's time (_De Vir. Ill._ c. 115), accordingly, it had become usual to read, in the regular meetings of the churches which were not so fortunate as to possess a competent preacher, the written discourses of celebrated fathers; and at a considerably later period we have on record the canon of at least one provincial council (that of Vaux, probably the third, held in 529 A.D.), positively enjoining that if the presbyter through any infirmity is unable himself to preach, "homilies of the holy fathers" (homiliae sanctorum patrum) are to be read by the deacons. Thus the finally fixed meaning of the word homily as an ecclesiastical term came to be a written discourse (generally possessing the sanction of some great name) read in church by or for the officiating clergyman when from any cause he was unable to deliver a sermon of his own. As the standard of clerical education sank during the dark ages, the habit of using the sermons of others became almost universal. Among the authors whose works were found specially serviceable in this way may be mentioned the Venerable Bede, who is credited with no fewer than 140 homilies in the Basel and Cologne editions of his works, and who certainly was the author of many _Homiliae de Tempore_ which were much in vogue during the 8th and following centuries. Prior to Charlemagne it is probable that several other collections of homilies had obtained considerable popularity, but in the time of that emperor these had suffered so many mutilations and corruptions that an authoritative revision was felt to be imperatively necessary. The result was the well-known _Homiliarium_, prepared by Paul Warnefrid, otherwise known as Paulus Diaconus (q.v.).[4] It consists of 176 homilies arranged in order for all the Sundays and festivals of the ecclesiastical year; and probably was completed before the year 780. Though written in Latin, its discourses were doubtless intended to be delivered in the vulgar tongue; the clergy, however, were often too indolent or too ignorant for this, although by more than one provincial council they were enjoined to exert themselves so that they might be able to do so.[5] Hence an important form of literary activity came to be the translation of the homilies approved by the church into the vernacular. Thus we find Alfred the Great translating the homilies of Bede; and in a similar manner arose Aelfric's Anglo-Saxon _Homilies_ and the German _Homiliarium_ of Ottfried of Weissenburg. Such _Homiliaria_ as were in use in England down to the end of the 15th century were at the time of the Reformation eagerly sought for and destroyed, so that they are now extremely rare, and the few copies which have been preserved are generally in a mutilated or imperfect form.[6]

The _Books of Homilies_ referred to in the 35th article of the Church of England originated at a convocation in 1542, at which it was agreed "to make certain homilies for stay of such errors as were then by ignorant preachers sparkled among the people." Certain homilies, accordingly, composed by dignitaries of the lower house, were in the following year produced by the prolocutor; and after some delay a volume was published in 1547 entitled _Certain sermons or homilies appointed by the King's Majesty to be declared and read by all parsons, vicars, or curates every Sunday in their churches where they have cure_. In 1563 a second _Book of Homilies_ was submitted along with the 39 Articles to convocation; it was issued the same year under the title _The second Tome of Homilies of such matters as were promised and instituted in the former part of Homilies, set out by the authority of the Queen's Majesty, and to be read in every Parish Church agreeably_. Of the twelve homilies contained in the first book, four (the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th) are probably to be attributed to Cranmer, and one (the 12th) possibly to Latimer; one (the 6th) is by Bonner; another (the 5th) is by John Harpsfield, archdeacon of London, and another (the 11th) by Thomas Becon, one of Cranmer's chaplains. The authorship of the others is unknown. The second book consists of twenty-one homilies, of which the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 8th, 9th, 16th and 17th have been assigned to Jewel, the 4th to Grindal, the 5th and 6th to Pilkington and the 18th to Parker. See the critical edition by Griffiths, Oxford, 1869. The homilies are not now read publicly, though they are sometimes appealed to in controversies affecting the doctrines of the Anglican Church.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See Philo, _Quod omnis probus liber_, sec. 12 (ed. Mangey ii.
458; cf. ii. 630).

[2] Sozomen (_Hist. Eccl._ vii. 19) mentions that in Alexandria in
his day the bishop alone was in the custom of preaching; but this, he
implies, was a very exceptional state of matters, dating only from
the time of Arius.

[3] To the more strictly exegetical lectures the names [Greek:
exegeseis, exegemata, exegetika, ektheseis,] were sometimes applied.
But as no popular discourse delivered from the pulpit could ever be
exclusively expository and as on the other hand every sermon
professing to be based on Scripture required to be more or less
"exegetical" and "textual," it would obviously be sometimes very hard
to draw the line of distinction between [Greek: homilia] and [Greek:
logos]. It would be difficult to define very precisely the difference
in French between a "conference" and a "sermon"; and the same
difficulty seems to have been experienced in Greek by Photius, who
says of the eloquent pulpit orations of Chrysostom, that they were
[Greek: homiliai] rather than [Greek: logoi].

[4] Manuscript copies are preserved at Heidelberg, Darmstadt,
Frankfort, Giessen, Cassel and other places. It was first printed at
Spires in 1482. In the Cologne edition of 1530 the title
runs--_Homiliae seu mavis sermones sive conciones ad populum,
praestantissimorum ecclesiae doctorum Hieronymi, Augustini, Ambrosii,
Gregorii, Origenis, Chrysostomi, Bedae, &c., in hunc ordinem digestae
per Alchuinum levitam, idque injungente ei Carolo M. Rom. Imp. cui a
secretis fuit_. Though thus attributed here to Alcuin, who is known
to have revised the Lectionary or _Comes Hieronymi_, the compilation
of the _Homiliarium_ is in the emperor's own commission entrusted to
Paul, to whom it is assigned in the earlier printed editions also. A
comparison of different editions shows that the contents increased
with the ever-growing number of saints' days and festivals, new
discourses by later preachers like Bernard being constantly added.

[5] Neander, _Church History_, v. 174 (Eng. trans. of 1851).

[6] An ancient English metrical homiliarium is preserved in the
library of the university of Cambridge. Earlier versions of it have
existed, and a portion of perhaps the earliest copy, dating from
about the middle of the 13th century, was published in 1862 by Mr J.
Small, librarian to the university of Edinburgh.

HOMOEOPATHY (from the Greek [Greek: homoios], like, and [Greek: pathos], feeling). The distinctive system of therapeutics which bears the name of homoeopathy is based upon the law _similia similibus curentur_,[1] the originator of which was S. C. F. Hahnemann, a native of Meissen in Germany, who discovered his new principle while he was experimenting with cinchona bark in 1790, and announced it in 1796.[2] The essential tenets of homoeopathy--with which is contrasted the "allopathy" ([Greek: allos], other) of the "orthodox" therapeutics--are that the cure of disease is effected by drugs that are capable of producing in a healthy individual symptoms similar to those of the disease to be treated, and that to ascertain the curative virtues of any drug it must be "proved" upon healthy persons--that is, taken by individuals of both sexes in a state of health in gradually increasing doses. The manifestations of drug action thus produced are carefully recorded, and this record of "drug-diseases," after being verified by repetition on many "provers," constitutes the distinguishing feature of the homoeopathic materia medica, which, while it embraces the sources, preparation and uses of drugs as known to the orthodox pharmacopoeia, contains, in addition, the various "provings" obtained in the manner above described.

Besides the promulgation of the doctrine of similars, Hahnemann also enunciated a theory to account for the origin of all chronic diseases, which he asserted were derived either directly or remotely from psora (the itch), syphilis (venereal disease) or sycosis (fig-wart disease). This doctrine, although at first adopted by some of the enthusiastic followers of Hahnemann, was almost immediately discarded by very many who had a firm belief in his law of cure. In the light of advancing science such theories are entirely untenable, and it was unfortunate for the system of medicine which he founded that Hahnemann should have promulgated such an hypothesis. It served as a target for the shafts of ridicule showered upon the system by those who were its opponents, and even at the present time there still exists in the minds of many misinformed persons the conviction that homoeopathy is a system of medicine that bases the origin of all chronic disease on the itch or on syphilis or fig-warts.

Another peculiar feature of homoeopathy is its posology or theory of dose. It may be asserted that homoeopathic posology has nothing more to do with the original law of cure than the psora (itch) theory has, and that it was one of the later creations of Hahnemann's mind. Most homoeopathists believe more or less in the action of minute doses of medicine, but it must not be considered as an integral part of the system. The dose is the corollary, not the principle. Yet in the minds of many, infinitesimal doses of medicine stand for homoeopathy itself, the real law of cure being completely put into the background. The question of dose has also divided the members of the homoeopathic school into bitter factions, and is therefore a matter for careful consideration. Many employ low potencies,[3] i.e. mother tinctures, first, second, sixth dilutions, &c., while others use hundred-thousandths and millionths.

Some homoeopathists of the present day still believe with Hahnemann that, even after the material medicinal particles of a drug have been subdivided to the fullest extent, the continuation of the dynamization or trituration or succussion develops a spiritual acurative agency, and that the higher the potency, the more subtle and more powerful is the curative action. Hahnemann says (_Organon_, 3rd American edition, p. 101), "It is only by means of the spiritual influence of a morbific agent that our spiritual vital power can be diseased, and in like manner only by the spiritual operation of medicine can health be restored." This is absolutely denied by others. Thus there exist two schools among the adherents of homoeopathy. On the one hand there are the Hahnemannians, the "Purists" or "High Potency" men, who still profess to regard the _Organon_ as their Bible, who believe in all the teachings of Hahnemann, who adhere in their prescriptions to the single dose, the single medicine, and the highest possible potency, and regard the doctrine of the spiritual dynamization acquired by trituration and succussion as indubitable. On the other side there are the "Rational" or "Low Potency" men, who believe in the universality of the law of cure, but think that it cannot always be applied, on account of an imperfect materia medica and a lack of knowledge on the part of the physician. They believe that in many cases of severe and acute pain palliatives are required, and that they are free to use all the adjuvants at present known to science for the relief of suffering humanity--massage, balneology, electricity, hygiene, &c. The American Institute of Homoeopathy, the national body of the United States, has adopted the following resolution and ordered it to be published conspicuously in each number of the _Transactions_ of the society: "A homoeopathic physician is one who adds to his knowledge of medicine a special knowledge of homoeopathic therapeutics. All that pertains to the great field of medical learning is his by tradition, by inheritance, by right."

It is claimed that the effect produced upon both the laity and the general profession of medicine by the introduction of homoeopathy was salutary in many ways. It diminished the quantity of medicine that was formerly considered necessary for the eradication of disease, and thus revealed the fact that the _vis medicatrix naturae_ is often sufficient, with occasional and gentle assistance, to cure many diseases, especially those fevers that run a definite and regular course. Corroboration of the law _similia similibus curentur_ is seen, according to homoeopathists, in the adoption of the serum therapy, which consists in the treatment of the most malignant diseases (diphtheria, lock-jaw, typhoid fever, tuberculosis, bubonic plague) by introducing into the system a modified form (similar) of those poisons that produce them in the healthy individual. Hahnemann undoubtedly deserves the credit of being the first to break decidedly with the old school of medical practice, in which, forgetful of the teachings of Hippocrates, nature was either overlooked or rudely opposed by wrong and ungentle methods. We can scarcely now estimate the force of character and of courage which was implied in his abandoning the common lines of medicine. More than this, he and his followers showed results in the treatment of disease which compared very favourably with the results of contemporary orthodox practice.

Homoeopathy has given prominence to the therapeutical side of medicine, and has done much to stimulate the study of the physiological action of drugs. It has done service in directing more special attention to various powerful drugs, such as aconite, nux vomica, belladonna, and to the advantage of giving them in simpler forms than were common before the days of Hahnemann. But in the medical profession homoeopathy nevertheless remains under the stigma of being a dissenting sect. It has been publicly announced that if the homoeopathists would abolish the name "homoeopathy," and remove it from their periodicals, colleges, hospitals, dispensaries and asylums, they would be received within the fold of the regular profession. These conditions have been accepted by a few homoeopathists who have become members of the most prominent medical association in the United States.

Homoeopathy as it exists to-day can, in the opinion of its adherents, stand by itself, and its progress for a century in face of prolonged and determined opposition appears to its upholders to be evidence of its truth. There are still, indeed, in both schools of medical thought, men who stand fast by their old principles. There are homoeopathists who can see nothing but evil in the practice of their brothers of the orthodox school, as there are allopathists who still regard homoeopathy as a humbug and a sham. There are, however, liberal-minded men in both schools, who look upon the adoption of any safe and efficient method of curing disease as the birthright of the true physician, and who allow every man to prescribe for his patients as his conscience may dictate, and, provided he be educated in all the collateral branches of medical science, are ready to exchange views for the good of suffering humanity.

_Great Britain._--Homoeopathy is not rapidly extending in Great
Britain, and its recognition has been slow. The first notice taken of
the new system of therapeutics was by the Medical Society of London in
1826. In 1827 the physician of Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, Dr F. H.
F. Quin (1799-1878), who had previously studied homoeopathy in Germany
and practised it in Italy, came to England, and it was through his
efforts that the system was introduced. Three other physicians, Dr
Belluomini, Dr Romani and Dr Tagliani, claimed priority, but careful
research established Dr Quin's title. Quin was a successful man
professionally and socially, and brought upon himself in a short time
the anathema of the Royal College of Physicians. In 1844 Dr William
Henderson, professor of pathology in the university of Edinburgh,
embraced the Hahnemannian system. A storm of opposition arose, and
Professor J. Y. Simpson (the discoverer of chloroform anaesthesia)
published a volume, with the alliterative title, _Homoeopathy, its
Tenets and Tendencies, Theoretical, Theological, and Therapeutical_.
This brochure was answered by Professor Henderson, the title of his
book being _Homoeopathy Fairly Represented_. From 1827 to 1837 there
were but a dozen practitioners of homoeopathy in London, but during
1837 to 1847 the number increased to between seventy and eighty. In
1857 there were upwards of two hundred practitioners in the kingdom,
with thirty-three institutions in which the law of similars was used
as a basis of practice. In 1867 the increase was not so rapid, the
number being 261. A society was formed about this period for "the
protection of homoeopathic practitioners and students," which proved
of great value in binding the sect together. In 1870 congresses were
established, and annual meetings held, which have continued to the
present time. In 1901 there were over three hundred homoeopathic
physicians in the British Isles, of whom between seventy and eighty
were in London alone. There were seventy-nine chemists, of whom
seventeen were located in London, and eighty-two towns and cities in
the country contained from one to ten homoeopathic practitioners each,
together with many established chemists for dispensing homoeopathic
medicines. The British Homoeopathic Society was founded by Quin in
1844, and has numerous members and fellows, besides corresponding
members in all portions of the world, including Australia, India and
Tasmania. The London Homoeopathic Hospital was founded in 1850, also
largely through the efforts of Quin, and a few years afterwards moved
to Great Ormond Street. During the cholera epidemic of 1854 the
statistics of this hospital showed a mortality of 16.4%, against 51.8%
of other metropolitan charities. The London Homoeopathic Hospital has
a convalescent home under its management at Eastbourne. There are also
dispensaries in Ealing and West Middlesex, Kensington, Notting Hill
and Bayswater. Similar institutions are located in Bath, Birkenhead,
Birmingham, Bootle, Bournemouth, Brighton, Bristol, Bromley,
Cheltenham, Cheshire, Croydon, Dublin, Eastbourne, Edinburgh,
Folkestone, Hastings and St Leonards, Ipswich, Leeds, Leicester,
Liverpool, Newcastle, Northampton, Norwich, Oxford, Plymouth, Torquay,
Tunbridge Wells, Weston-super-Mare. The homoeopathic journals include
the _Homoeopathic World_, the _London Homoeopathic Hospital_
_Reports_, the _Journal of the British Homoeopathic Society_, and the
_British Homoeopathic Review_, the last being issued by the British
Homoeopathic Association, which was founded in 1902 for the purpose of
developing and extending homoeopathy in Great Britain. The _British
Journal of Homoeopathy_ was first published in 1843, and was edited by
Drs Drysdale, Russell and Black. For many years it was the foremost
homoeopathic journal in the world. Its motto was _In certis unitas, in
dubiis libertas, in omnibus charitas_. One reason why homoeopathy has
not advanced as rapidly in the British Isles as in America is said to
be the discrimination exercised against it by the General Medical
Council, and another is want of cohesion amongst the homoeopaths
themselves.

_United States._--Homoeopathy was introduced into the United States by
Dr Hans Birch Gram, who was born in Boston. His father being Danish,
Gram in his eighteenth year went to Copenhagen, where he graduated in
1814. In 1823 he became acquainted with homoeopathy, and brought a
knowledge of it to America in 1825 when he settled in New York. The
first homoeopathic association was formed in 1833 in Philadelphia, the
second in New York, 1834, and homoeopathy became known in the
different states somewhat in the following order: New York, 1825;
Pennsylvania, 1828; Louisiana, 1836; Connecticut, 1837; Massachusetts,
1837-1838; Maryland, 1837; Delaware, 1837; Kentucky, 1837; Vermont,
1838; Rhode Island, 1839; Ohio, 1839; New Jersey, 1840; Maine, 1840;
New Hampshire, 1840; Michigan, 1841; Georgia, 1842; Wisconsin, 1842;
Alabama, 1843; Illinois, 1843; Tennessee, 1844; Missouri, 1844; Texas,
1848; Minnesota, 1852; Nebraska, 1862; Colorado, 1863; Iowa, 1871.
After 1871 the spread of the system was rapid throughout every state
in the Union, and it is in the United States that homoeopathy
principally flourishes. There are thousands of homoeopathic
physicians, and their clients number several millions. It may be noted
that departments of homoeopathy are connected with the universities of
Boston, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota and Kansas City.

_Canada._--The early history of homoeopathy can be traced back nearly
to 1850 in the province of Quebec. In the Dominion of Canada the
various provinces control the licensing of physicians, excepting in
Quebec, which is the only province having a separate homoeopathic
board of examiners. This is under the control of the Montreal
homoeopathic Association, and is known as the College of Homoeopathic
Physicians and Surgeons of Montreal. Three examiners are annually
appointed by the association. Successful candidates receive the
diploma of the college, and are entitled to add to their degree the
letters M.C.H.P.S. A certificate of successful examination is
forwarded to the lieutenant-governor at Quebec, who, "if satisfied of
the loyalty, integrity and good morals of the applicant, may grant him
a license to practise surgery, physic and midwifery, or either of
them, in the province of Quebec." The word "loyalty" has been decided
by the provincial secretary to mean a British subject. This is the
only government medical license now issued in the British empire, the
others being by provincial boards or colleges of physicians and
surgeons. In 1894 there was no homoeopathic institution in the
province; at present the Montreal Homoeopathic Hospital is in active
operation. Two homoeopathic papers are published monthly--the
_Homoeopathic Record_ in Montreal, and the _Homoeopathic Messenger_ in
Toronto. In 1870, in the province of Ontario, the three schools,
allopathic, homoeopathic and eclectic, united for examining purposes
into one board called the medical council, seventeen members
representing the old school and five the other two systems. Finally
the eclectics were merged in the old school, the board appointing five
of Hahnemann's followers for examining purposes. Grace Hospital at
Toronto (erected 1892) was begun as a dispensary in 1887.

_Germany._--In 1810 Hahnemann published his _Organon_, which was the
starting-point of homoeopathy in Germany. In 1811 an endeavour was
made to found an institution in Leipzig in which practitioners might
learn the new method of treatment theoretically and practically, but
it was not a success, as the entire tide of professional opinion was
against the system. In 1829, at the celebration of the fiftieth
anniversary of Hahnemann's doctorate, the German Central Society was
organized, holding its first meeting in 1830. In the university
hospital of Munich some experiments were made to test the efficacy of
homoeopathic medicines, but these were not successful. In 1831 the
government prohibited homoeopathists from dispensing their own
medicines; this was a severe blow to the system. In 1834 there was a
division among the homoeopathists themselves, which much retarded the
progress of the school. A homoeopathic hospital was established about
this time (January 1833) in Leipzig, but there was such constant
wrangling among the physicians connected with it that its sphere of
usefulness was curtailed, and it was finally converted into a
dispensary. The Baden Homoeopathic Society was established in 1834.
The homoeopathic hospital in Munich was established in 1836, but
suffered a similar fate to that of Leipzig, and was converted into a
dispensary. The rather equivocal success of these hospitals in Saxony
and Bavaria was in direct contrast to the fate of two newly
established hospitals in Austria, one in Vienna and the other in Linz,
which were very successful, and aroused great interest both among
physicians and laymen. During the political confusion of 1846 and 1849
there was complete stagnation of everything medical in Germany. But
during all these years, though the public institutions were few, the
literature on homoeopathic subjects became very extensive, and
exercised a significant influence upon the system in all parts of the
world. Hahnemann died in 1843, and on the 10th of August 1851 a bronze
monument to him was unveiled at Leipzig. The Leipzig dispensary lived
thirty-three years. From 1842 to 1874 there were treated in this
institution 65,106 patients. In 1901 there were about 250 homoeopathic
physicians in Germany; they appeared to be strongest at Berlin, in the
province of Brandenburg, in Pomerania and Westphalia, Saxony, Hessen
and in Wurttemberg.

_Austria-Hungary._--Homoeopathy was introduced into Austria about
1817, and in 1819 its practice was forbidden by law. Shortly
afterwards the physician attending the archduke John became a
homoeopath. In 1825 the doctrine was introduced into Vienna. To test
the efficacy of the system Francis I. ordered that experiments be made
with homoeopathic medicines, and for this purpose a ward furnished
with twelve beds was allotted. The results were satisfactory to the
new system, and it made gigantic strides in Vienna. During the cholera
epidemic of 1836 an increased impetus was given to the new school by
the reported brilliant successes of the treatment. Societies were
founded and journals published. In 1846 a second hospital was founded.
In 1850 a third hospital was opened, and clinical lectures upon the
system were delivered. In 1873 the Society of Homoeopathic Physicians
was formed. Between the years 1873 and 1893 homoeopathy declined. In
1901, in thirty-seven cities and towns there were to be found about
fifty physicians and two hospitals, and it was estimated that about
seventy-five more were scattered in Moravia, Bohemia, Tirol, Salzburg
and the coast provinces. There is a professorship of homoeopathy at
the University of Budapest, and homoeopathic clinics are held at the
new Rochus Hospital in Ulloi Street, and also in the homoeopathic
department of the Hospital Bethesda of the Reformed Community. The
Elizabeth Hospital, exclusively homoeopathic, has existed for many
years.

_Russia._--The homoeopathic system was introduced into Russia in 1823.
In 1825 great impetus was given to the new doctrine by the conversion
of Dr Bigel, physician to the grand duke Constantine. In 1829 the
grand duke ordered a series of experiments to be conducted to prove
the truth or fallacy of homoeopathy, and they demonstrated the success
of the new school. In 1841 a hospital was established in Moscow, and
in 1849 similar institutions were founded in Nizhniy-Novgorod. Since
then homoeopathy has been steadily practised, and has penetrated to
the remotest parts of Russia. In 1881 the civil engineers proposed to
commemorate the virtues of the emperor Alexander II. by the erection
of a hospital; a committee for collecting funds was created, and
58,064 roubles were handed to the Charity Society of the followers of
homoeopathy at St Petersburg for the erection and founding of a
homoeopathic hospital. The foundation stone of the edifice was laid on
19th June 1893, the emperor Alexander III. giving 5000 roubles. The
inauguration of a new dispensary and a pharmacy took place on the 19th
of April 1898, and the hospital itself, intended originally for fifty
beds, was opened on the 1st of November 1898. There are sixteen free
beds, three of them being in the name of the emperor Nicholas, the
empress Maria Feodorovna, and the emperor Alexander III. On the 28th
of January 1899 an imperial edict was issued granting the rights of
public service to the doctors of the hospital and dispensaries of the
Charity Society, thus placing them on an equality with the doctors of
the prevailing medical school.

_France._--Homoeopathy was first introduced into France in 1830 by
Count de Guidi, doctor of medicine, doctor of science, and inspector
of the university, who practised in Lyons. About the same year Dr
Antoine Petroz, widely known by his _Grand dictionnaire des sciences
medicales_, began practising homoeopathy in Paris, and his
establishment became the headquarters of the new system there. In 1835
Hahnemann himself came to the capital. In 1832 the homoeopathic method
of treating disease was introduced into the Hospice de Choisy, and in
1842 into the hospital of Carentan. Tessier practised the new doctrine
in his wards in the Hospital St Marguerite, and in the Children's
Hospital up to the year 1862, when he retired. The first homoeopathic
society was established in 1832 (the Societe Gallicain), Hahnemann
becoming president in 1835; in 1845 the Societe de Medecine
Homeopathique was organized; and in 1860 the two were united for the
better interests of the school. In 1901 there were at Paris three
hospitals--the Hospital St Jacques with fifty-five beds, the Hahnemann
Hospital with thirty-five beds, and the new Protestant Hospital for
Children with twenty-five-beds. At Lyons there is the Hospital St Luc.
The medical journals include _L'Art medical, La Revue homeopathique
belge, Journal belge d'homeopathie, La Therapeutique Integrale, La
Revue homeopathique francaise_. In the year 1900 the medical officers
of the republic having supervision over the medical department of the
International Exhibition officially recognized the members of the
homoeopathic school, and arranged for the proper accommodation and
reception of the International Congress of Homoeopathic Physicians
held in June. On the 30th of that month, with appropriate ceremonies,
the remains of Hahnemann were removed from the cemetery of Montmartre
and deposited in Pere-la-Chaise, and a monument bearing a suitable
inscription was erected to the memory of the founder of homoeopathy.

_Italy._--The Austrians when they entered Naples in 1821 brought
homoeopathy into Italy, the general in command of the army being a
devoted friend of Hahnemann. In 1828 Dr Count Sebastian de Guidi came
from Lyons and assisted in spreading the doctrine. During the period
from 1830 to 1860 many physicians practised homoeopathy, and the
literature on the subject became extensive. A homoeopathic clinic was
established and a ward opened in Trinity Hospital at Naples, and a
homoeopathic physician was appointed to the count of Syracuse. During
the severe cholera epidemics of 1854, 1855, 1865 the success of
homoeopathic treatment of that disease was so marked under the care of
Dr Rubini that the attention of the authorities was directed to the
system. In 1860 the homoeopathic practice was introduced into the
Spedale della Cesarea, and since that period homoeopathy has been
recognized with more or less favour in most of the cities. The Italian
Homoeopathic Institute is recognized by royal warrant as an
established institution, and its regulations are approved by the
government. In Turin the legal seat of the Homoeopathic Institute,
there is a hospital under the management of the State Association. The
homoeopathic medical press consists of the _Revista Omiopatica_,
established in 1855, and _L'Omiopatico in Italia_, the organ of the
Italian Homoeopathic Institute, which first appeared in 1884.

_Spain._--Homoeopathy was introduced into Spain in 1829 by a physician
to the Royal Commission sent by the king of Naples to attend the
marriage of Maria Christina with Don Ferdinand VII. Shortly after
this, a merchant of Cadiz visited Hahnemann in Coethen, and was cured
of a serious disorder; he returned to Spain with a supply of
homoeopathic literature, and immediately sent a medical student to
Leipzig to study the new system. In 1843 many cases of cholera were
treated homoeopathically in Madrid. The civil war, which did not
terminate until 1840, arrested all medical investigation in Spain, but
in 1843 there still existed in Madrid five pharmacies and a number of
homoeopathic physicians. About this time Dr Tosi Nunez returned from
an investigation of the new system with Hahnemann, and owing to his
success in the treatment of disease was created one of the physicians
of the bedchamber to the queen, who soon afterwards conferred upon him
the title of marquis, with the grand crosses of the Charles III. and
of the Civil Order of Beneficiencia. This recognition by high
authority gave an impetus to homoeopathy which has continued ever
since.

_Denmark._--Homoeopathy was unknown in Denmark until the year 1821,
when Hans Christian Lund, a medical practitioner, adopted it.
Hahnemann, however, had been both before and after that time consulted
by Danes, and consequently homoeopathic therapeutics was recognized in
different parts of the country. Lund translated many of Hahnemann's
works into Danish, as well as those of other eminent members of the
new school. (W. T. H.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] An interesting controversy has been carried on between the
members of the homoeopathic school as to the proper construction of
the Latin motto which constitutes its acknowledged basis. For many
years the verb at the conclusion of the sentence was used in the
indicative mood, _curantur_, thus making the sentence a positive one.
After extended research it has been discovered that Hahnemann himself
never employed the word _curantur_ as descriptive of his law of cure,
but always wrote _curentur_, which greatly modifies the meaning of
the phrase. If the subjunctive mood be used, the motto reads, "Let
similars be treated by similars," or "similars should be treated by
similars." The reading _similia similibus curentur_ was officially
adopted as the correct reading of the sentence by the American
Institute of Homoeopathy at its session held in Atlantic City, N.J.,
on the 20th of June 1899; and the words are so inscribed on the
monument erected to the memory of Hahnemann and unveiled in
Washington, D.C., on the 23rd of June 1900, and also are those carved
upon the tomb of Hahnemann in Pere-la-Chaise, Paris.

[2] Some points of Hahnemann's system were borrowed from previous
writers--as he himself, though imperfectly, admits. Not to mention
others, he was anticipated by Hippocrates, and especially by
Paracelsus (1495-1541). The identical words _similia similibus
curantur_ occur in the Geneva edition (1658) of the works of
Paracelsus, as a marginal heading of one of the paragraphs; and in
the "Fragmenta Medica," _Op. Omnia_, i. 168, 169, occurs the
following passage:

_Simile similis cura; non contrarium._

"Quisquis enim cum laude agere Medicum volet, is has nugas longe
valere jubeat. Nec enim ullus unquam morbus calidus per frigida
sanatus fuit, nec frigidus per calida. Simile autem suum simile
frequenter curavit, scilicet Mercurius sulphur, et sulphur Mercurium;
et sal ilia, velut et illa sal. Interdum quidem cum proprietate
junctum frigidum sanavit calidum; sed id non factum est ratione
frigidi, verum ratione naturae alterius, quam a primo illo omnino
diversam facimus."