Transcriber's note:
Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
Small capital text has been replaced with all capitals.
Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).
The carat character (^) indicates that the following letter is
superscripted (example: Rob^).
Minor typographical and punctuation errors have been corrected
without note. Irregularities and inconsistencies in the text have
been retained as printed.
Plate VI "E. F. C. Prentos" is unclear.
* * * * *
CREMATION OF THE DEAD
ITS HISTORY
AND
BEARINGS UPON PUBLIC HEALTH
BY
WILLIAM EASSIE, C.E.
FELLOW OF THE LINNEAN AND GEOLOGICAL SOCIETIES
MEMBER OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL INSTITUTE
ETC.
_WITH ILLUSTRATIONS_
LONDON
SMITH, ELDER, & CO., 15 WATERLOO PLACE
1875
[_All rights reserved_]
Dedicated
TO
SIR H. THOMPSON, F.R.C.S.
ETC. ETC.
IN RECOGNITION OF HIS ENLIGHTENED ADVOCACY OF
A PRACTICE PREVALENT IN ANCIENT TIMES,
BUT LONG ABANDONED, TO THE GREAT
DETRIMENT OF MANKIND
PREFACE.
Shortly after having accepted, from the members of the Council of
the Cremation Society of London, the office of Secretary, a wish
was expressed to me by the President of the Metropolitan Branch of
the British Medical Association, that I should prepare a paper upon
the Bearings of Cremation upon Public Health. A short paper, with
this title, was therefore read, and was afterwards published in the
Journal of the Association by the Editor, Mr. Ernest Hart. It was so
favourably received by all, that I have been induced to extend my
enquiries and so render the work, if possible, more acceptable as an
exposition of the subject. I am sensible of its many defects, but I
trust that it will be found to furnish some useful information which
cannot well be obtained elsewhere, besides proving an assistance to
those who are desirous of studying the question more fully.
WILLIAM EASSIE.
CHILD'S HILL, LONDON, N.W.
_December, 1874._
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION.
PAGE
The probable sanitary origin of Cremation--Not necessarily
opposed to Religion--General reasons--Wisdom of adopting it
in cases of epidemics--Sundry objections treated--The
decorousness of the practice--Cremation desirable in the
battlefield--In cases of murrain--In the destruction of
condemned food, &c. 1-23
CHAPTER II.
METHODS OF TREATING THE DEAD.
Exposure, or the absence of all burial--Consignment to the
deep--Petrifaction--Envelopment in some solid material--Burial
in the earth--Embalming preparations--Desiccation of the
body--Cremation a widely-spread practice--Examples of
quasi-cremation 24-40
CHAPTER III.
OUR BURIAL LAWS.
State of things thirty years ago--The new cemeteries--Space
allowed for, and the depths of interments--Vault burial--A
well-chosen cemetery--An improperly-chosen one--The closing
and regulation of old burial-grounds, &c.--Materials
for coffins 41-52
CHAPTER IV.
DANGERS OF OUR SYSTEM OF BURIAL.
Churchyards and the evils resulting from some of them--How the
living are affected by them--Disorders caused by putrid
emanations--Dangers of inhaling the atmosphere of some
burial-grounds--Vaults--Poisoning of wells and
water-courses--Laxity of many interments 53-67
CHAPTER V.
PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION.
Promoters of the practice of Cremation and prospects of its
adoption in Italy--In Switzerland--In France--In Belgium--In
Austria--In Germany--In America--In England--Sir Henry
Thompson's work--The Cremation Society of London, its objects,
&c. 68-88
CHAPTER VI.
CREMATION, ANCIENT AND MODERN.
Ancient modes of cremation as illustrated by recent burnings in
Italy, India, Siam, and North America--Modern experiments
in Italy, Germany, and England--The Siemens' apparatus,
its construction, perfect working, and economy--Proposed
procedure--Disposal of the ashes--Description of cinerary
vessels, old and new--Conclusion--Bibliography of the
subject 89-130
ILLUSTRATIONS.
(_All at end of book._)
PLATE
I. VIEW OF A SIEMENS' APPARATUS (GERMAN PATTERN).
II. SIEMENS' APPARATUS (ENGLISH PATTERN).
III. SKETCH OF MORTUARY CHAPEL.
IV. URNS.
V. SKETCH OF FAMILY COLUMBARIUM, OR NICHE IN PRIVATE CHAPEL.
VI. URNS IN THE CRYPT AND CHURCH.
CREMATION OF THE DEAD.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION.
Cremation of the dead is neither new in theory nor in practice. In
the England of modern times, however, the question has only recently
assumed recognised importance. And the more one considers cremation,
the more one finds himself wondering how it has come to pass that
we practise burial, with its many faults, and do not burn our dead.
Thousands amongst us are now beginning to feel thankful that the
dead are soon to 'rule our spirits from their urns' in a realistic
and not alone in a poetical sense. They think there is something
majestic and even pleasurable in the idea that it will ere long be
possible, on all civilised shores, to leave their mother earth, not
with a partial, but with a fully consummated sacrifice upon her
altar, bidding her adieu none the worse, but rather the better, for
their sojourn with her. They groan and labour under the burden of
enforced burial, and 'hail with satisfaction and joy the prospect
that a chariot of fire may receive them instead of the cold and
darksome grave.'
The scheme has met with some enemies, and injudicious promoters of
the system have not proved the least of them. The idea that it was
sought to make it compulsory, was an unfortunate utterance. The
notion of producing illuminating gas for general purposes from the
combustion of the bodies was another mischievous idea.[1] Equally so
was the proposal for the erection of a tall shaft in the cemetery
grounds, where the gases could be seen consuming--something after
the fashion, I suppose, of the twelfth century's _lanternes des
morts_. The publication of crude and undigested fancies does more
harm than good to the subject they are meant to benefit.
[1] The original proposer of this scheme was M. Rudler, who proposed
it to Dr. Caffe, of Paris, in 1857.
It has been urged that the practice of burning the dead had its
origin in a heathen religion, but it is not wise to accept the
imputation. Let us take Greece for an example. All historians inform
us that the people of ancient Greece practised inhumation. But when
they did practise cremation, they nowhere associated the burning
of the dead with the worship of the gods. And we are at liberty to
argue from this fact that neither did the aboriginal peoples from
whom they derived it, regard it as an act with which religion had
aught to do, the story of Odin notwithstanding. And the reason why
the Greeks did not practise it earlier, was doubtless simply because
the bulk of the colonists came from countries where another system
prevailed. Cecrops and Danaus, who were instrumental in colonising
Athens and Argos, were Egyptians, and Cadmus, the founder of Thebes
in Bœotia, was a Phœnician.[2] Neither of these nations burnt their
dead, but practised another system of burial.
[2] Jamieson.
There can, I think, be little doubt that the burning of the dead
was originally resorted to upon sanitary grounds, and as a means of
protecting the living from the effects of corruption. Putridity was
observed to be loathsome and dangerous, and it was found that the
practice of burning, and that only, at once resolved the body into
its first elements. In Scandinavia, the dead were disposed of by
fire from the earliest recorded times, and the great antiquity of
the custom amongst the Celtæ, Sarmatians, and neighbouring nations,
has never been doubted.[3] It was practised in our islands also in
pre-historic times.
[3] _Ibid._
Cremation was the prevailing custom from remote ages in Scythia,
or what is now called Tartary, and we are free to believe that
its origin was similarly a hygienic one. The Scythians were the
progenitors of the Thracians, and we read that these latter observed
incineration from the earliest date.[4] The Thracians in their turn
introduced the practice amongst the Greeks, although it is possible
that a portion of the Hellenes learnt it from the Phrygians, who
again very probably obtained it from India. The Greeks, too,
evidently adopted it from motives of sanitary reform; at all events,
there was no religious question involved in it. About 1500 B.C.,
the Greeks invariably buried their dead;[5] they had not learnt
the valuable lesson. They do not seem to have burned them either
in the ninth century before Christ, for the Institutes of Lycurgus
specify the manner in which burial was to be performed. In the time
of Socrates, however, 500 B.C., cremation appears to have become
optional, for Plato makes Socrates say that he did not care whether
he was burned or buried. It was, however, common enough about 100
B.C.; I myself have dug up on the site of Dardanus relics of this
kind of sepulture. Time rolled on, and in their turn the Romans,
who also originally inhumed,[6] borrowed the salutary practice,
performing it first inside the city, and then extramurally. It did
not become general in Rome, however, until towards the close of the
Republic. Towards the end of the fourth century it became much
neglected, and finally the Christians, inimical to the practice,
although it was nowhere forbidden in the New Testament, made
haste to abolish it in Europe. Burial and burning appear to have
been practised contemporaneously for some little time, on our own
Yorkshire wolds for example,[7] but ultimately the former triumphed.
[4] Herodotus.
[5] Cicero.
[6] Pliny.
[7] Canon Greenwell.
I have said that the process of burning the dead is nowhere
specially forbidden in the New Testament, and neither is it in the
older Scriptures. Moses nowhere legislates against it, and it is
reasonable to suppose that he must have heard of it, having been a
considerable traveller. The early Jews are said to have objected
to burning because they held the idea that the soul holds more or
less intercourse with the body for a year after death. That the
ancient race held this notion is corroborated by the 'dwelling among
tombs and enquiring of spirits.'[8] The Hebrews were also said to
have interred in caves or tombs--from Abraham down to Joseph of
Arimathea--from a fear of premature interment, since the sun was
not allowed to go down twice upon the unburied dead. It is more
reasonable to suppose that the motive of public health was the
correct one. Possibly they might have burned their dead also--as
in nearly all originally well-wooded countries--if they had been
possessed of fuel.[9] This was a drawback, and from what I have seen
of Palestine, I doubt whether at any time sufficient fuel could
have been found for everyday use in this way. When visited by a
pestilence, however, the Rabbis admit that fires were kept burning
in the valley of Tophet to consume the dead.[10] This was apparently
a universal custom. When Homer hinted that the frequency of the
kindling of the funeral pyres was owing to the contagion sent by
Apollo, he alluded to the practice.[11] And without doubt cremation
was the proper treatment at such times, and would spare the horrid
sights witnessed when large common graves are dug. Interments of
this class are never free from danger. Instances are known where
these communal graves have been opened up and the disease of the
dead sufferers once more let loose upon the living.
[8] Jamieson.
[9] Cremation is not opposed to Jewish doctrines.--'Jewish
Chronicle,' April 10, 1874.
[10] Frazer.
[11] 'Iliad.'
Fortunately for sanitary science, cases are upon record where a
disturbance of the interred victims of infectious epidemics has
been followed by a fresh outbreak, and thus we are fairly warned
of the danger. In 1828, Professor Bianchi explained how the dire
reappearance of the plague at Modena was due to an excavation
made in some ground where, 300 years previously, the victims of
the plague had been interred. At Eyam, in Derbyshire, remarks Mr.
Cooper,[12] the digging up of the plague burial-grounds caused an
immediate outbreak of disease. Mr. Cooper also describes how the
excavations made for sewers in the site where the victims of the
plague of 1665 were buried, enhanced the virulence of the cholera
which visited London during the year 1854. Mr. Simon had previously
warned the authorities of what would result from any disturbance of
the spot.[13] Dr. Playfair also declares that the fever prevalent
in Rome is due to the exhalations from the soil, which is saturated
with organic matter.
[12] 'On the Causes of some Epidemics.' Glasgow, 1874.
[13] 'The plague-pit,' says the 'Lancet' of September 16, 1854, 'is
situated within the area bounded by Argyll Place, King Street, Tyler
Street, Little Marlborough Street being directly over the pit.'
In 1843, when the parish church of Minchinhampton was rebuilding,
the soil of the burial-ground, or what was superfluous, was disposed
of for manure, and deposited in many of the neighbouring gardens.
The result was that the town was nearly decimated. I have lately
made personal inquiries upon the spot, and find that the mischief
which resulted has been even understated. The outbreak of the plague
in Egypt in 1823 has also been traced to the opening of a disused
burial-ground at Kelioub, fourteen miles from Cairo. Two thousand
perished in the village, and Cairo suffered fearful mortality.
The outbreak of plague from this cause is also vouched for by M.
Pariset, who was sent to Egypt by the French Government to inquire
into the cause of the plague. Even the exhalations of a single
corpse buried twelve years have been known to engender a dangerous
disease in a whole convent.[14]
[14] H. W. Hemsworth.
I think it may be accepted as proven that the burning of the dead
was of purely sanitary origin, and that it is erroneous to consider
it a religious one. It became identified with heathen worship,
because then everything was heathen. In Italy, the Abbé Bucellati,
of Pavia, deprecates the idea that cremation can in any way be
considered heretical; at the most, says he, it can only be called a
rash project. The Rev. Mr. Long, of Zurich, for his part, insists
that religion has no title to mix itself up with the question. The
subject is essentially one of health, and will so remain. We may
almost say that so prominently did the practice bring forth the idea
of purification in the minds of its original observers, that several
semi-religious mystifications were born of it. Thus the body was
supposed by some to be unclean after the soul had left it, and that
fire alone could purify it. Others held that by burning the body
the soul was finally loosed from the clay, and cleansed from the
contaminations which it contracted in the flesh.
In order to arrive at a correct idea of all the modes of sepulture
followed out in this country since the islands were first populated,
it would be necessary to consult almost an endless variety of
archæological, ethnological, and anthropological works. Professor
Rolleston has, however, lately reprinted a paper of his, upon the
methods of 'Sepulture observable in late Romano-British and early
Anglo-Saxon times, in this country,' and it deals with as much of
the question as answers the present purpose. He shows that burning
of the dead was not resorted to by the early Christians of England,
and he quotes Mr. Kemble to the effect that all Anglo-Saxon burials
without cremation in England are Christian. This says nothing for
or against the desirability of the reintroduction of cremation
amongst us. The question, however, is a curious and interesting one,
and all would doubtless wish to know whether or not the examples
of cremation already recorded from fifteen counties in England
are all heathen. When some of the graves were opened they were
found to contain fragments of charcoal, but that again must not be
necessarily taken as an evidence of cremation. It was but the other
day that a wooden bowl full of charcoal was found in the tomb of
Leonardo da Vinci. In the middle ages it was common to place a
vessel full of ashes on the pillow of a dying Christian and to bury
it with him; and the practices would seem identical. The reason for
finding 'shards, flints, and pebbles' in the later and possibly
Christian graves has also led to some curious discussion. It is
inferred that it was probably allowed in earlier Christian times,
and only discarded about the time of Shakespeare.[15] The whole
controversy must be left in the hands of those who, like Professor
Rolleston, are prosecuting researches into the early methods of
burial, and who have opportunities and attainments for coming to a
right and final conclusion.
[15] Rolleston.
It would be supremely foolish to object to the burning of the dead
on the score of its being completely a heathen practice, and as if
burial in the ground was not at one time open to the same objection.
Not only so, but the battle between torch and spade was fought out
in early times as now.
A writer of the second century admits that many of the Gentiles
disapproved of cremation on the score of the cruelty which it did to
the body, which did not deserve such penal treatment.[16] This is
exactly what some are declaring now. An exclamation is even to be
found in an old Greek poet asking Prometheus to take back the fire
which he had procured them.[17] Just as now a few Christians are
contesting the propriety of burning the dead upon any consideration
whatever, so the heathens were disputing the like question before
the advent of Christianity. Heraclitus advocated burning--Thales and
Hippon burial. Up to this day the Persian fire-worshippers will have
naught to do with cremation because they regard it as a profanation
of their deity. Nay, peoples are still disputing in countries
which are painted in pagan black upon our missionary maps, and
where Christians as yet have no footing. In Japan, the Shinto sect
practises burial, the Monto sect cremation.[18] In Madras Presidency
the votaries of Vishnu are burned, and those of Siva are buried in
the common way. Amongst the hill tribes of North Aracan one tribe
buries its dead in graves dug in the villages, the adjacent one
burns its dead after the fashion of the neighbouring Burmese.[19]
And to quote one more example, some tribes of the Miau-Tsi--who are
all of them zealous Buddhists--burn their dead, whilst others do
not.[20]
[16] Tertullian.
[17] Jamieson.
[18] 'Lancet.'
[19] St. A. St. John.
[20] Rev. J. Edkins.
People are every now and then solemnly informed that it is
unadvisable to practise cremation because it is supposed to militate
against a belief in the resurrection.[21]
[21] The Earl of Shaftesbury once remarked to an eminent promoter of
the present cremation movement, with regard to this very prevalent
and erroneous notion, that it was altogether unreasonable. 'What,'
said he, 'would in such a case become of the blessed martyrs?'
But the ancient Romans, as has been explained by his Grace the
Bishop of Manchester, believed in the immortality of the soul, which
is a collateral idea, and _they_ practised the burning of the dead.
They did not believe in the resurrection of their present bodies,
it is true, neither do many now.[22] The truth, on examination,
however, appears to be that the early Christians objected to it
because it was practised by the pagans, and because it was necessary
to draw a strong barrier line between the two faiths. The ostensible
objection which they found to burning was that their bodies had
been redeemed and renewed in God's image. They taught that it was
unlawful to burn the dead, because the penalty of fire had been
remitted. The body was to be buried, and was thus held to be in
readiness for the last trump. They did not believe that it was
impossible to raise up the martyrs which were even then burnt, but
they were not to burn. The breach between the two faiths was not at
first an utter one, however. The Christians interred in the same
places as the heathens, and even painted and engraved upon the
catacombs representations of the heathen gods and goddesses.[23] The
breach, however, widened, and then came the more Christian emblems
of wreaths of flowers, angels, and children. Later on in succession
came the Good Shepherd, the cross, the crucifixion scene, and so
on,[24] gradually leading up to the skull and cross-bones of the
last century. By this time the Christians heard of burning with
horror. But a classical reaction set in about the time of Pope and
Dryden, and now again may be seen in every churchyard the broken
shaft, the inverted torches, and other emblems. It would also be
fairly impossible to count the number of marble urns which 'in pride
of place' rest upon the monuments in our cemeteries.
[22] 'I presume that it has been shown beyond doubt that the
material particles which make up our bodies are in a constant state
of flux, the entire physical nature being changed every seven years;
so that if all the particles which once entered into the structure
of a man of fourscore were reassembled, they would suffice to make
seven or eight bodies.'--Rev. A. K. H. B.
[23] Dean Stanley.
[24] _Ibid._
Many other groundless objections have been imported into the
cremation question. For instance, some demur to burning because
the body of our Saviour was not so treated. Can anything be more
puerile than this when once it is examined? Our Saviour's body
was not burnt simply because HE was a Jew, and the Jews practised
burial in sepulchres. HE performed several of HIS greatest miracles
owing to this very practice. But if we are to follow the prototype
so closely, why do we practise burial in the earth? And why do we
not lay our dead in roomy sepulchres? I have perused most, if not
all, of the religious objections which have been urged against
cremation, and I humbly say that they appear to me to be outside
the pale of argument altogether. They rank only as very respectable
crotchets, and never rise above mere sentiment. The truth is, that
the question of burying the dead or of burning them ought never to
have been made, if ever it has seriously been made, a religious
question. As professing Christians we should take the advice of a
late writer, and take care that the burning of the dead does not
fall into altogether infidel hands, and so become at last a symbol
of irreligion.[25] It would be wise also to commence adding to the
Hymnals[26] compositions which would suit the new and more rational
order of things, and so prepare the weaker brethren for what one
cannot help calling the inevitable.
[25] I. O. in 'Church Review.'
[26] Cremation has already been made the subject of verse upon the
Continent. Dr. Moretti, of Cannero, in the 'Annali di Chimica,'
1872, has given to the world some excellent verses; and Professor
Polizzi, in a poem published at Girgenti, 1873, and dedicated to
the memory of Dr. Salsi, has also eloquently apostrophised the
subject. Some two-and-twenty stanzas in the Milanese dialect were
published in 1874, by Civelli of Milan. I have also seen some German
verses, signed 'Dranmor,' and a short but charming poem in the same
language by Justinius Kerner. It is a matter of regret that those of
our own poets who have been in favour of burning the dead did not
enshrine their proclivities in verse. Southey, for instance, wrote
that the custom of interment 'makes the idea of a dead friend more
unpleasant. We think of the grave, corruption, and worms: burning
would be better.' But he left us no poetry on the subject.
Cremation has been objected to[27] on the score of its being an
indecent mode of disposal of our dead, but I for one differ from
this view entirely. Anyone who resides on a main road leading to a
large metropolitan cemetery, will be able to speak with certainty
as to the indecency of very much which they witness appertaining to
the present mode of sepulture. And how anyone can be found to uphold
against all argument the present unfeeling shams of paid mourners
with 'wands, batons, feathers, and fooleries,' indulged in simply
from custom's sake and a dread of what the world would say if the
'conventional costumes and mock expressions of woe' were omitted, I
cannot imagine. The funerals of the rich are always conducted with
decorum, but those of the poor are often hideously the reverse of
this, and tend, I am sure, more than anything to blunt the finer
feelings of our nature.
[27] It forms no part of my purpose to defend cremation against
those who consider that its practice might lead to the commission of
crime owing to the entire destruction of the body. This and other
objections have been suitably dealt with in the work of Sir Henry
Thompson.
We shall have occasion to notice in the proper place the proposed
procedure in the new order of things, but may here remark that when
cremation has once taken place, shorn of no religious rite, the
ashes may be placed in urns or interred in ground duly set apart for
the purpose, and surrounding the machinery for incineration. Or
they may be removed to distant and loved churchyards without fear
of evil effects following. I think that the likeliest place for the
reception of the relics would be the vaults of our churches, where
they could be taken charge of by the ministers of religion. Once
in charge of appointed persons, no unseemly litigation could take
place as to the possession of them. In Siam the ashes are sometimes
buried in the grounds surrounding the temples, and a small pyramidal
mound erected over them.[28] There could be no objection to treat
them so here, but if urned they could be equally well placed in a
columbarium,[29] and proper inscriptions put over the receptacles,
as was done on the small stone sarcophagi of Italy. An English
Catholic writes to the effect that cremation would once more enable
us to bury our dead in the churches,[30] and the suggestion would
commend itself to many minds. Some such practice is hinted at in the
book of Isaiah. On All Saints' day[31] the vaults could be thrown
open for public resort.
[28] Crawfurd.
[29] See Plate VI.
[30] 'Building News,' April 18, 1874.
[31] Or All Souls' day. Some most touching scenes are witnessed in
continental cemeteries on this occasion, more particularly in France
and North Germany.
In both ancient Greece and Rome the dwelling-house was made the
repository of the funeral urns; at all events, the practice was
carried on for a very long period. The Thebans at one time had a
law that no one should build a house without a specific repository
for the dead.[32] It is possible that private mausoleums could with
due decency be attached to ancestral mansions in our country,[33]
but such cases will necessarily be rare. Even then they should be
subjected to proper supervision. It would most certainly prove
unseemly for the poorer classes to place them, as has been mooted,
in their residences, subject to all the inconveniences of removal
and other easily imagined drawbacks. Disrespect and irreverence
only could follow such a recommendation. The Theban regulation just
adverted to proves that the heathens, as they are called, were not
to be charged with any lack of respect to their departed dead.
On the contrary, the most tender sentiments are wound round the
practice of cremation. Hercules is reported to have burnt the body
of Argius, because only in this way could he return the son to a
sorrowing father.[34] Nay, in some cases the reverence for the dead
became transcendental, and the rites of cremation were carried to
such an extent that the funeral pile was shapen like an altar, and
bedewed with wine and incense. This, however, was in the decadence
of the nation. Nor was this all, for sometimes an altar called an
_acerra_ was afterwards built before the sepulchre.
[32] Potter.
[33] See Plate V.
[34] Jamieson.
These few remarks upon the cremation of human bodies have as yet
referred only to those which have succumbed to the ordinary evils
of life; but I cannot forbear recording my conviction that it would
be wise in the stricken field to have recourse to the practice.
During the sittings of the recent International Sanitary Congress
a paper was read by Professor Reclam of Leipzic, in which he most
strongly urged the adoption of cremation after destructive battles.
He described a new portable burning apparatus capable of reducing
the carcase of a horse to ashes within two hours, and at a cost
of four shillings' worth of fuel. He moreover declared that the
dead, both men and horses, left on the battlefield of Gravelotte
might have been by the aid of such machinery reduced to 'a harmless
heap of white ashes in four days.' One thing is certain: science,
which invented the mitrailleuse, could easily devise a proper
apparatus.[35]
[35] Mr. Hemsworth has suggested an apparatus for the purpose.
Combatants who have been slain, or who have perished through
sickness, are buried as haste dictates, and often imperfectly. I
saw, during the war, relics of the dead protrude from the Sebastopol
trenches. The bodies at Metz were in many cases exhumed by the
Germans and re-interred, because the superficial burial rendered
them dangerous to adjoining tenements, and a source of contamination
to watercourses. At Sedan the same thing occurred, only in this
instance the dead bodies were consumed with pitch and straw.[36]
Cremation is the only practice which seems commendable in times of
warfare. Numerous dead Saracens were burnt by the King of Castile.
During the wars between the English and the Burgundians and the
French--the latter led by Joan of Arc--the dead were on one occasion
piled up outside the city of Paris, and consumed in one huge pyre.
After the late battle of Cuenca, the Carlists threw many of their
dead into fires presumably lit for the purpose. Surely it would
be well for sanitation's sake, that the slain were burnt, as in
the olden times, upon days set apart by arrangement of neutrals.
The Genevan and other Conventions could scarce find nobler work to
inaugurate than this. It would be a wise repetition of history,
should another great war unfortunately break out, if the combatants
would adopt this salutary practice of 3,000 years ago. With the
ancient Athenians, when soldiers fell in battle it was the custom
to collect them into tents, where they lay for a few days, in order
to ensure recognition. Each tribe then conveyed their dead in
cypress shells to the _Ceramicos_ or place of public burning; an
empty hearse following behind in memory of the missing. It is not
necessary, however, that the dead should be burned internationally.
During the Trojan war--and since the discoveries of Dr. Schliemann
we are almost at liberty to believe in it--men were sent out from
each side to collect the dead, and the Trojans and allies burnt
on separate pyres. There can be no doubt whatever that the dead
were so treated. I have always considered that one or more of the
huge earth tumuli on the plains of Troy, which I have frequently
visited, would prove to cover ancient funeral pyres, and this point
was put beyond all dispute by Mr. Frank Calvert in 1859. He opened
up the Hanai-Tepeh tumulus there, and found an immensity of ashes,
corresponding to what might have been expected after a great burning
of the dead. He came to the conclusion that this was the site of the
funeral pyre raised by the Trojans after the first truce.[37]
[36] Dr. Parkes, 'Practical Hygiene,' 4th edit. 1874.
[37] 'J. Arch. Soc.' vol. xvi.
Were cremation practised now-a-days in times of warfare, and with
our improved appliances, there would be no costly monuments to be
kept up by the invaders, such as we now jealously maintain on the
heights of Sebastopol[38]--nothing be left behind to recall a
strife best forgotten. The ashes of our warrior dead could even be
brought home to lie in the fatherland. When Nestor recommended the
bodies of the slain Achæans to be burnt close to the ships, in order
that the survivors might be able to carry home the bones, and raise
over them a common tomb,[39] he proved himself much wiser than our
generation.
[38] The commissioners sent to report upon the state of the English
graveyards in the year 1872 found no less than 130 cemeteries
occupied by our dead. Forty-five of them contained no monuments, and
65 only headstones of the commonest kind. The French had gathered
together some 28,000 of _their_ dead, and formed one large _campo
santo_. The English commission reported that it would require
5,000_l._ to put the graveyards in seemly order, and an annual
expenditure of some 200_l._ more. It appears that the graves have
been frequently rifled by the Tartar peasantry in search of rings
and other valuables. See 'Daily Telegraph,' Oct. 30, 1874.
[39] 'Iliad.'
The general adverse feeling to burning even the dead bodies of
animals at the present day, has without doubt often brought about
serious evils. During the Crimean war the putrefaction of numberless
horses in and around the French camps became ultimately a serious
matter,[40] and had they been destroyed by fire no evil effects
could have followed. Why were they not destroyed by fire?--for fear
of offending the prejudices of their allies? For one reads that in
the battle of Paris, on March 30, 1814, 4,000 horses which were
killed, were burnt twelve days afterwards. It is doubtful, too,
whether or not the removal of diseased cattle from our midst by
burial only, is sufficient to stamp out a very virulent plague. I
find that during the great plague of 1865, in Great Britain alone
132,000 cattle were attacked; 17,368 of which were killed, and
81,368 of which died.[41] Had a few hecatombs been slain and burnt
at the commencement of the visitation, or had the initial thousand
of sickly ones been slain and consumed by fire in Russia, the steppe
murrain would have been speedily stamped out.
[40] Dr. Parkes.
[41] Gamgee on the 'Cattle Plague.'
In a similar manner should be treated the whole of the meat seized
as unfit for food. In Gloucester, some years ago, and when the
mayor had no power to fine the vendors of bad butchers' meat, the
carcases were, it is said, destroyed by fire outside the city wall.
Would that such jurisdiction existed now! In the metropolis alone,
thousands of tons of animal food are yearly condemned, to say
nothing of fruit and vegetables. The State should burn these up with
even more alacrity than contraband of custom. And the purification
by fire might be even extended to the humblest things. It has been
said that the lower animals which perish in our midst must perforce
send thousands of pounds of mephitic vapour daily into the air,
if left unburnt.[42] It is not necessary to enumerate what else
it would be desirable to destroy in this way. They can be seen in
nearly every river, canal, and pond, in every ditch, gutter, and
even street.
[42] Frazer.
Medical men are the chief exponents of the good results which will
follow the adoption of cremation, and with one exception the whole
of the foreign writers upon the subject are professors of some
branch of medical science. It is the same in our own country.[43]
[43] The last public utterance was made by Dr. Wheelhouse, of Leeds,
in his address of October in the present year. He says:--
'Do we not shun, and that most wisely, the presence of those
afflicted with infectious diseases so long as they remain amongst
us; and yet, no sooner are they removed by death, than we are
content, with tender sympathy indeed, and most loving care it is
true (but with how much wisdom?), to lay them in the ground that
they may slowly dissipate their terribly infectious gases through
the soil, and saturating that, may thereby recharge the rains of
heaven, as they filter through it, with all their virulence and
terrible power of reproduction in the systems of the living. I
am not the thorough and entire believer in the disinfecting and
depurating power of the soil that I once was; for terrible examples
of its failure have, in my judgment, come under my notice.
'Sir Henry Thompson has lately sounded a note of alarm on this
subject; and though, for the present, it may fall upon ears
unheeding or unsympathetic, I yet venture to think that, in time to
come, his warning will be enforced by stern necessity, and that some
better method of disposing of our dead will take the place of the
burial so honoured and revered by us.'