our great american poet, edgar allan poe, says: “to be buried alive is beyond question the most terrific of all extremes which have ever fallen to the lot of mere mortality.”

is any death more horrible than this? to be embraced, unprepared, down in the deep dark grave! to awake again with the greatest longing for life, suffering the most severe bodily tortures, in the coffin! to realize that there is no escape from inevitable death! who can conceive the feeling of finding one’s self in the grave, the blood rushing to the head, the body trembling convulsively in the vain endeavors of casting off the oppressing weight, the organs of respiration laboring without avail for air, the muscles of the whole body working without result, and above all, being mindful of certain death near at hand?

from time to time anti-crematists, advocates of earth burial, of course, assert that cases of burial alive are exceedingly rare and occur very seldom. this is very erroneous. our newspapers teem with the reports of such cases, and one must be a careless reader indeed not to observe them. as i am a daily peruser of some specimen of the secular press, and hardly anything of importance escapes my notice, i succeeded in making a 181collection of cases of burial alive, from which i will cite some striking examples. a wheeling, w. va., special despatch to the chicago tribune relates the terrible fate of a young married lady as follows:—

“one of those ghastly stories of interment before life has become extinct, which cause an involuntary shudder of horror to pass through the reader, is current in this city to-night. the victim, so the story goes, is a young married lady of 20 years. in may of last year, three months after her marriage, the lady was taken violently ill, and after lingering for ten days, apparently died. there were certain peculiarities about the appearance of the supposed corpse, however, which caused a suspicion in the mind of the attending physician that his patient might be in a trance, but after keeping the body for four days with no signs of returning life, the remains were consigned to the grave, temporary interment being made in the family lot in an abandoned graveyard. a day or two ago the body was disinterred prior to removal to another cemetery. to the surprise of the sexton the coffin-lid showed signs of displacement, and on its being removed the grave-digger was horrified to find the remains turned face downward, the hand filled with long tufts of hair torn from the head, and the face, neck, and bosom deeply scratched and scarred, while the lining of the coffin had been torn into fragments in the desperate efforts of the entombed victim to escape from her horrible fate. since the discovery the young husband has been prostrated, and his life is despaired of. the names are withheld.”

the sequent curious case of premature interment occurred at leipsic, a small town in the state of ohio. a lady who was pregnant died suddenly. she was put 182in a coffin and placed, temporarily, to await the burial-day, in a vault. some of her relatives, however, thought that she had been disposed of too hastily and caused her coffin to be opened. when the air struck her body, she revived. she was taken home and recovered entirely, being soon after delivered of female twins.

a despatch from woodstock, ont., dated jan. 18, 1886, to the detroit evening news states:—

“one year ago a girl named collins died, as was supposed, while playing on the street. the body was moved last week from where it had been buried in the family plot, and the parents wishing to view the remains, had the coffin opened, when to their horror they discovered that a dreadful struggle must have taken place after burial. the shroud had been torn to shreds, the knees were drawn up to the chin, one arm was twisted under the head, and the features bore evidence of dreadful torture,—all unmistakable proofs that the girl had been buried alive.”

the celebrated english anatomist, winslow, is said to have been twice nearly interred alive.

the marquis d’ourches, courageous in all other respects, had the greatest fear of premature burial. he recorded all the stories of burial alive; he believed in them, and even asserted that one of his uncles had awaked under ground.

“i have seen death in every aspect,” said a general to dr. josat, a gentleman rewarded for a book on mortuary houses, “and it has never had any terrors for me; but i own that i shudder at the notion of finding it at the bottom of a ditch in the cemetery.”

incomplete death, or trance, as it is called, stands midway between death and life. during this state the 183senses cannot receive impressions; they are inactive, paralyzed, as it were. yet the spark of life is still there and can, under proper care, be retained until the natural condition is restored. yet almost always trance ends through ignorance and carelessness in complete death.

it is an established fact that there is no certain sign of death, none but the beginning of decomposition. to prevent premature burial the body must be retained until the commencement of decay is visible. incineration protects from the horrors of burial alive. even if a person in a trance should be introduced into a cremation furnace, the intense heat to which the body would be subjected would extinguish life immediately and painlessly.

it is alleged by some who are more impressed by prejudice than reason, that cremation is heathenish, brutish, pagan, atheistic,—in short, contrary to christian practice.

this i deny! to be sure the heathen did practice it,—the ancient asiatics (oriental peoples in general), romans, greeks, teutons, and etruscans,—but at the same time they executed grave-burial; and yet i have never heard anybody decry the latter as abominable, disgusting, and heathenish. it must be kept in mind, that the first christians were compelled by their heathen persecutors to adopt burial. they were forced to inter their dead secretly in the catacombs; they could not, even if they had chosen to, burn their dead, as the smoke from the cremation pyre would have betrayed them.

why inhumation should have become so universal among the christians, that it is looked upon as a necessary 184part of the religion, and all other means of disposal of the dead as heathenish, is not entirely plain. there is no condemnation of cremation in any of the dogmatic teachings of the apostles. the early christians, whether in jud?a, greece, or rome, were mainly of the poorer classes, who had to bury their dead. the mere fact that the richer and more educated classes, who were the most difficult to proselytize, universally practiced cremation would probably cause that custom to be associated with their other heathenish practices.

the romans regarded the early christians as a new sect of the jews and called them “nazarenes.” and, in fact, christianity was born of judaism; for jesus, the founder, himself says (matthew v. 17): “think not that i am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: i am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” it is easy to understand how, being an offspring of judaism, christianity should adopt that method of disposing of the dead then prevalent among the jews. at first, as dean stanley avers, the breach between the heathens and christians was not an utter one. according to this great divine the early christians inhumed in the same places as the heathens, and even painted and engraved upon the catacombs representations of the pagan gods. later on the breach widened, however, and the christians, as intimated above, were forced to bury their dead in seclusion.

it is alleged by some eminent writers on theological subjects that in the beginning christians were even cremated.

merivale, the historian, holds that letters inscribed on many of the christian tombs in the catacombs imply that the early christians sometimes burned their dead. 185nevertheless, at the end of the fourth century christians heard of burning with horror, and finally becoming inimical to the practice, although it was nowhere forbidden in the new testament, made haste to abolish it in europe.

the black and white jasper urn.

(barlow collection.)

at the time of pope and dryden a classical reaction set in, and now again may be seen in every churchyard the broken shaft, the inverted torches, and innumerable marble urns which “in pride of place” rest upon the monuments in our cemeteries.

the phrase “ashes to ashes, dust to dust,” which occurs in almost every funeral sermon preached by modern clergymen, is but an allegory which was derived from the ancient custom of cineration. it is impossible to imagine ashes without the act of burning.

the inscription “peace to his ashes” which so often is found, in black or golden letters, on the tombstones 186of the present time, preaches incineration in our burial-grounds.

when the romans embraced christianity, it was transformed completely, and represented a strange commixture of rites partly of pagan and partly of hebrew origin. the dalmatica of priests, utensils for celebrating mass, frankincense, etc., were derived from the jews; whereas many other things, as for instance the worship of images, sprung from heathenism. the papal tiara has a remarkable resemblance to the historical conical cap of the roman pontifex maximus; and to this day the latin appellation of the pope is identical with that of his pagan predecessor. the derivation of the crosier, the pastoral staff of the bishops, from the crook of the augurs is undeniable.

the mummy graves and representations upon the vessels of clay which were deposited in the sepulchres with the mummies testify that the cross (and indeed the upright cross) was one of the oldest and pre-christian ornaments in the hands of the gods of ancient egypt. it was not before the twelfth century that it was erroneously made a specific christian symbol, ostensibly to demonstrate that although the cross was most contemptible, yet christ himself had elevated it into dignity. thus the sign of the cross became the symbol of christianity. such wooden crosses, history tells us, were also placed as a memorial upon the mounds of heathen graves.

if we would not want to imitate heathenism any more, we would have to quit eating with knives and forks, stop wearing boots and pantaloons, and do away with surcoats and rings. with the exception of steel pens and matches, but little would be left of our daily necessities 187of life that would not be an imitation of paganism.

the perpetual lamp burning at the ideal grave of the saviour on the altars of catholic churches is an imitation of the lamps which were lit on the memorial days of the deceased in the columbaria of ancient rome, and by whose maintenance slaves, according to testamentary directions, attained the position of freedmen.

the decoration of our burial-grounds with flowers on the memorial days of the dead is copied from the analogous usage of the heathenish romans.

the enemies of incineration say that every christian is bound to practice interment because the bible (i. moses iii. 19) prescribes:—

“in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return into the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.”

the above has no value whatever as evidence for inhumation; since at the times when the books of moses were written the inurned ashes were also deposited in the dust, i.e., the earth. the preservation of urns above ground is a much later custom. the above citation has no reference to the destruction of a body by fire or decay, but directs simply that the final remains of man, the dust, be placed in the earth. at least, this bible passage might be urged against columbaria, but it has no bearing whatever on cremation.

if we should have to follow the bible in all things, we would have to give up most of our modern inventions. for instance, the day of agricultural machines would be over, and we would have to tread out corn with oxen as of yore.

188it must be remembered that the early christians practiced many things which christians now do not practice; and they abominated some things which christians now universally practice. for instance, the early christians did not worship in temples or churches: they abominated temples as either pagan or jewish; they hated art and condemned statuary and painting, especially in connection with religion; they destroyed many masterpieces of ancient art which were not religious, besides some that were; and they burned all books save the bible. but these notions are no longer a part of christianity, and were never part of its true faith.

when the romans and greeks knew better than we know, we exercise no compunction in adopting their practices. our boys are taught from the classics; artists study the models of greek, that is, pagan, art; much of our philosophy is heathen, and more of our jurisprudence. the ancients were wiser than we in practicing incineration. why not, then, imitate them in this respect? granted even that cremation were a “pagan custom,” not to adopt it when it has been conclusively demonstrated to be superior to burial, simply because it is of heathenish origin, shows nothing but miserable narrow-mindedness.

if cremation is a “pagan custom,” how about interment? earth-burial to-day is practiced by more heathens than christians. or are not those whom we choose to style pagans in the majority? would it not, therefore, be far more correct to denominate inhumation a pagan custom?

dr. neil declares:—

“it was once considered an eminently christian virtue, entitling him who practiced it to the honors of 189canonization, to discard the use of soap and water; and this kind of medi?val piety prevails a good deal yet, notwithstanding the good old roman practice of ablution. i do not find, however, that even christian sanitarians object to the more frequent use of the bath because it was the pagan practice.”

inhumation is claimed to be the christian method of disposal of the dead par excellence because christ was so disposed of.

“by the same sort of reasoning,” says the medical times and gazette of london, england, “might it not be held that crucifixion has been so consecrated that it ought to be the mode of capital punishment in christian countries?” moreover, as the rev. h. r. haweis informs us, “christ is no example to us, for according to christian belief he rose from the dead and saw no corruption.”

it is exceedingly interesting to read what christ himself said about burial.

jesus, being a jew, like the hebrews in general had little regard for burial and the grave. among the jews contact with the dead was considered an act of defilement that had to be soon atoned for.

from the following passage (matthew viii. 21, 22) it is plain that christ was no friend of interment:—

“and another of his disciples said unto him, lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. but jesus said unto him, follow me; and let the dead bury the dead.”

by the dead (i.e., spiritually dead) the saviour, according to the best exegesis, meant the outside world, and he wanted to intimate that burial was fit work for them, but not for the christian or disciple.

190see also st. luke ix. 59.

christ disparaged the importance of burial more than once. indeed, it seems that he paid little attention to the disposal of the dead. we find him, during his ministrations on earth, healing the sick, turning water into wine to make glad the hearts of guests at a wedding feast, administering to the wants of the indigent, and cheering the down-trodden; but never at funeral ceremonies. it was he who declared:—

“god is not the god of the dead, but of the living.”

dr. le moyne says:—

“so far as we have knowledge of new testament history, we find no command given anywhere which was a ‘thus saith the lord’ for any mode of burial. the christian world was left to choose a mode of burial.”

when jesus distinguished between cave and earth burial, he considered the latter the most despicable mode of burial, to which he compared the scribes and pharisees; for when he reproved them by rebuke and disparagement, he said (matthew xxii. 27):—

“woe unto you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites, for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which, indeed, appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.”

the above shows in what estimation the founder of christianity held inhumation.

it seems christ himself gave the preference to cave-burial, for so he was disposed of. he was placed (vide matthew xxvii. 57–60) in the rock-hewn tomb of joseph of arimathea, which was open in front, and the door of which was closed with a stone.

christ was not buried in the earth, but was placed in 191a sepulchre because he was a jew. had he been an egyptian, he would have been embalmed after the fashion of a mummy. it was merely a matter of custom, and is not necessarily a precedent to be followed. it is evident that to be buried as christ was, christians would have to be deposited in rock-hewn tombs.

the assertion of certain religious fanatics, that cremation interferes with the christian doctrine of the resurrection, proves untenable enough when one but remembers that both interment and incineration lead to the same result; namely, to the total destruction of the body. in the case of cremation this takes place within an hour; in earth burial the process may last for centuries until completed.

professor max müller, the famous linguist, in his biographical essays, writes:—

“i often regret that the jews buried and did not burn the dead, for in that case the christian idea of the resurrection would have remained far more spiritual.”

cannon liddon believes that:—

“the resurrection of the body from its ashes is not a greater miracle than the resurrection of an unburnt body. each must be purely miraculous. faith in the resurrection would have been as clear and strong if the jews had burnt their dead, as it is when, as a matter of fact, they buried them.”

dr. le moyne says:—

“some religionists object to cremation because it might possibly throw obstacles in god’s way of collecting the particles which once formed the body. they seem to forget that the dispersion of the atoms which compose the human body is just as wide and perfect by inhumation as by cremation.”

192napoleon i., the great, was a firm believer in cremation. on dec. 14, 1816, five years before his death, he conversed freely with his surgeon, barry o’meara, on various topics.

mr. o’meara (“napoleon in exile; or, a voice from st. helena.” by barry e. o’meara. w. gowans, new york, 1853, vol. i. p. 277) says:—

“he afterwards spoke about funeral rites, and added, that when he died, he would wish that his body might be burned. ‘it is the best mode,’ said he, ‘as then the corpse does not produce any inconvenience; and as to the resurrection, that must be accomplished by a miracle, and it is easy to the being who has it in his power to perform such a miracle as bringing the remains of the bodies together, to also form again the ashes of the dead.’”

during another talk with his medical adviser the ex-emperor said, “that he had ordered the slain burnt after the battle at wagram.”

i clip the following from the medical herald, and commend it to the notice of opposers of cremation on the ground of religion:—

“the most prejudiced religionist cannot offer one valid objection, for if god is to call up the scattered remains of the dead from both land and sea on the day of final resurrection, the ashes shall be as easily resolved from the urn as from the débris of a building in which bodies may have been accidentally consumed by fire.”

i should like to see the christian who believes that god will not take unto himself the soul of the brave fireman, who rushes courageously into a burning building to rescue his fellow-beings, and has the misfortune to fall and perish in the flames, while an indolent crowd 193is looking on below. nay, nay! i believe that he will be twice as welcome in the kingdom of heaven.

at the opening of the bolton cemetery in 1874, bishop fraser combated the anti-cremation movement, based upon the doctrine of the resurrection, with the sequent vigorous language:—

“the ancient romans believed in immortality, and yet they believed in burning the bodies of their dead. urn burial was certainly quite as decent as the practice of interment; and urns containing the ashes of the dead were more picturesque than coffins. can any one suppose that it would be more impossible for god to raise up a body at the resurrection, if needs be, out of elementary particles which had been liberated by the burning, than it would be to raise up a body from dust, and from the elements of bodies which had passed into the structure of worms? the omnipotence of god is not limited, and he would raise the dead whether he had to raise our bodies out of churchyards or whether he had to call our remains, like the remains of some ancient romans, out of an urn in which they were deposited 2000 years ago.”

it is a clerical duty to dispel superstitions. “superstition,” well says sprengel, “is the grave of science.” but it is not only the grave of science, but of all progress. the clergy should aid the latter and not place obstacles in its way.

colonel olcott says:—

“i am too firm a believer in the immortality of the soul, to view with patience the inconsistency of those who behave over the dead bodies of their friends as if the immortal part were being laid away in the ground. the more i might love my dead, the less willing i 194should be to leave the fair form that had once held an immortal spirit to turn into putrid carrion under ground, and breed a myriad of loathsome creatures out of its own rottenness. the attempt to substitute the scientific, poetical, and rational system of cremation has my earnest sympathy. i pray heaven that it may be possible to commit my body or that of any of my beloved to the pure flame, that in one short hour will purge them of dross as gold is refined in the furnace seven times heated.”

even the organ of the mormon hierarchy, the deseret news, that believes in an absolutely literal interpretation of the bible, reasons thus:—

“some object to cremation on the ground of its inconsistency with the christian doctrine of the resurrection. we do not see any force in that. no particle of matter is destroyed by fire; it is merely changed in form and reduced to primitive elements, or in their direction, for it is not clear that the action of fire extends so far as to resolve organized matter into its primal atoms. the same power that can call forth from the tomb a body that has decayed and gone to dust can quicken the dried ashes and draw from the elements the gases that have been dispersed by the flames of the crematory. how much of the actual particles that are seen now by the natural eye is necessary to the reformation of the human frame into a spiritual body with flesh and bones does not at present appear. but this is certain: the power that can resurrect the body from the grave or from the sea can bring it forth from any place or condition in the universe. belief in the resurrection implies belief in god, and with him all things are possible.”

195kate field, who of all americans probably is best acquainted with mormon life and doctrines, points out that when the literal mormon abjures literalness, it is high time for orthodox christians to cast away the above-mentioned sacrilegious objection.

how, by the way, about those who fall overboard and are swallowed by the fishes, or those who are blown up by an explosion? are they to be consigned to eternal damnation simply because they happened to meet with an accident? are they not to be raised hereafter?

the absurdity and unreasonableness of this erroneous notion was tersely and happily expressed by the earl of shaftesbury during a conversation with an eminent (sir t. spencer wells, i believe) promoter of the present cremation movement. he said:—

“what would in such a case become of the blessed martyrs?”

many of them have been reduced to ashes, and still these are held sacred.

i would advise the person who holds the opinion that the resurrection cannot take place after cremation to seek quickly the nearest physician who makes a speciality of insanity. i wonder if such persons are conscious that they commit a sacrilege in doubting that god is omnipotent.

from a purely catholic point of view it is urged that incineration would destroy the relics of individuals who might afterward be canonized.

this is the most ridiculous objection of the whole lot! are not the ashes of a saint as venerable as his bones? when such ashes are kept in a sealed urn, we may be certain of the genuineness of the relics. today, 196there is no guarantee whatever of their genuineness—many cities claiming to possess the only real relics of this or that saint.

the portland vase.

(originally a cinerary urn.)

there is no relation between cremation and religion. they are independent of each other. no passage in the holy bible prohibits incineration. the christian religion does not oppose it, nor does the jewish, as i learnt from an article in the jewish chronicle.

some newspapers seem to think that cremation is contrary to the jewish doctrines. our brethren at gibraltar and in the north of africa bury their dead in quicklime. no one can deny the orthodoxy of the jews on the shores of the mediterranean, yet more than once have some of their number been disposed of in the manner related above; the method being carried out but lately at mile-end. among the jews at london, instances of cremation are not unknown.

a swiss clergyman, the rev. mr. lange, declares 197that our saviour never spoke a single word in condemnation of incineration. dr. altherr, religious journal for the people (no. 11, 1874), also entertains the same opinion.

an english catholic pointed out that cremation would once more enable us to bury our dead in the churches, not only in the crypts of the sacred edifices, but also along the sides of the body of the churches.

rev. henry ward beecher had a word to say about cremation in a recent sermon of his. he thought that the universal christian teaching of the resurrection of the body would prevent any general acceptance of it while that teaching prevails. of course, a man of a “classical” education cannot reject incineration altogether, especially when he considers it from a hygienic point of view.

i have always been of the opinion that a great many clergymen fear to state their real views concerning cremation, lest their congregation might discharge them and engage the services of some other theologian; and i still have the same impression.

the so-called religious objection to cremation is wholly unsound, as even a great many anti-cremationists admit; it is therefore not surprising that “religious” opposition is fast weakening and waning wherever it has existed at all.

a late writer in the church review advises us to take care that incineration does not fall into infidel hands, and so become at last a symbol of irreligion.

the cemetery is regarded, in general, as a permanent resting-place of the dead, where they may sleep undisturbed. man of the present time puts his beloved into 198the dirty, dark ground, and hands them over to the foul putrefaction; he places upon their graves large, heavy monuments, as if to keep them down and prevent them from finding their way back again into this sinful world. but he thinks not of the festering mass of corruption hid away under the tombstone; to him the departed is more like one asleep, like he or she was when death claimed the mortal body. he fondly imagines that his dear ones shall remain there forever, that their quiet rest shall be unbroken. from year to year, however, bodies are added to those already buried, the disgusting state of overcrowding which i described minutely, with all its evils, shows itself, and then one of two things happens: either the remains of those buried before are ruthlessly dug up by the sexton’s spade and thrown into the mud whenever a new grave is made, or all of the bodies are exhumed and taken away; the soil is parcelled, and the new generation takes possession of the “city of the dead.”

in some cemeteries corpses are allowed to remain in a grave only a stipulated time; in english burial-grounds, where a freehold right is not secured, the remains may rest undisturbed but seven, in france five, years.

the sentiment of the public is expressed in the sequent extract from a lecture by the rev. brooke lambert:—

“there is no subject on which people feel more deeply than the disturbance of the remains of their ancestors, and even the displacement of effete memorials of them. i find that the prevailing feeling is that the dead ought never to be removed, nor the position of their monuments changed even by a hair’s breadth. now whilst 199our present system of burial remains, such changes in their places of interment must occur.”

when mr. walker, the surgeon, inspected the portugal street cemetery at london, england, on april 27, 1839, he discovered that two graves had been opened, the bones of the remains exposed to view; and a lot of coffin-wood, some quite fresh, intended (as he was informed) for firewood.

a gentleman who visited the same burial-ground some time before (vide times, june 25, 1838) wrote: “i was shocked to see two men employed in carrying baskets of human bones to the back of the ground through a small gate. i have 12 of my nearest and dearest relatives consigned to the grave in that ground, and i felt that i might perhaps at that moment be viewing, in the basket of skulls which passed before me, those of my own family thus brutally exhumed.”

a correspondent to the weekly despatch, of september 30, 1838, thus describes st. giles’ churchyard, where he had just been:—

“what a horrid place! it is full of coffins up to the surface. coffins are broken up before they are decayed; and bodies removed to the bone-house before they are sufficiently decayed to make their removal decent!... the bone-house is a large, round pit. into this had been shot from a wheelbarrow the but partly decayed inmates of the smashed coffins. on the north side was a man digging a grave. he was quite drunk. so, indeed, were all the grave-diggers we saw.”

walker saw the tin plates removed from the coffins broken up, and witnessed how many wagon-loads of bones were taken to the charnel-houses.

200lord ronald gower writes in vanity fair:—

“the other day i came across a somewhat rare little brochure,—an account of the violation of the royal sepulchres of st. denis, during the first french revolution. the work of destruction and sacrilege commenced early in october, 1793, and lasted all the month. the first corpse found was that of henry iv, the once beloved henri de navarre. some curiosity, if not affection, still seems to have lingered even among those patriots who have constituted themselves body-snatchers, and the bearnais was propped up against the church wall in his shroud, and became quite an attraction for the crowd. one of the republican guards even condescended to cut off the king’s gray, upturned moustache, and place it on his lip; another removed the beard, which he declared he would keep as a relic. after these marks of attention were exhausted, the body was thrown into a huge pit filled with quicklime, into which successively followed those of its ancestors and descendants.

“on the next day the corpses of henry iv’s wife, maria de medicis, that of his son, louis xiii, and that of his grandson, louis xiv, were added to this. the body of the sun-king (as louis xiv’s courtiers loved to call him) was as ‘black as ink.’ what a contrast to that majestic, bewigged head, as we see it on the canvas of le brun and rigault, must not that poor blackened skull have been! the body of the grand monarch’s wife and that of his son, the dauphin (father of louis xv) followed; all these, and especially the latter, were in a state of shocking decay.

“the following day poor harmless marie leczinska’s body was torn from its resting-place, as also were those 201of the ‘grand dauphin,’ the duke of burgundy and his wife, and several other princes and princesses of the same race, including three daughters of louis xv. all these were in a state of terrible decomposition, and in spite of the use of gunpowder and vinegar, the stench was so great that many of the workmen were seized with fever, and others had to continue the grewsome work. by a strange chance, on the very morning that marie antoinette’s sufferings came to an end on the place de la revolution, the body of another unfortunate queen saw the light of day,—it was on the 16th of october that the body of our queen henrietta maria, who had died in 1669, was taken from its coffin and added to the ghastly heap in the ‘ditch of the valois,’ as the pit into which these royal remains were hurled was called; that of her daughter the once ‘belle henriette’ came next, and then in quick succession the bodies of philippe d’orleans; that of his son, the notorious regent; of his daughter, the no less notorious duchesse de berri; of her husband; and half a dozen infants of the same family. on the same day a coffin was cautiously opened. this was found at the entrance of the royal vault (the customary position for that containing the latest deceased king), and contained the remains of louis ‘le bien aimé.’ no wonder that the body-snatchers hesitated before withdrawing the corpse from its enclosure, for it was remembered that louis had perished of a most terrible illness, and that an undertaker had died in consequence of placing the already pestilent corpse in its coffin. consequently it was only on the brink of the ditch that the body was removed and hastily rolled over the edge, but not without the precaution of discharging guns and burning much powder, 202and even then the air was terribly tainted far and near.

“i turn the page and find that we are only in the thick of all these dead men’s bones and uncleanness, for the republican resurrectionists began by the bourbons and had still to disentomb all the valois, and further back, up to the capetian line, and are not content until the almost legendary remains of dagobert and madame dagobert reappear. suffice it to add, that after louis the well-beloved had been disposed of, came in succession, like the line of royal ghosts seen by macbeth, charles v, who died in 1380, whose body was one of the few well-preserved, and was arrayed in royal robes, with a gilt crown and sceptre, still bright; that of his wife, jeanne de bourbon, who still held in her bony hand a decayed distaff of wood; charles vi with his queen, isabeau de bavière; charles vii and his wife, marie d’anjou; and then blanche de navarre, who died in 1391. charles viii, of whom nothing but dust remained, henry ii, catherine de medicis, charles ix, and henry iii, were disinterred on the morning of the 18th; ‘after the workmen’s dinner,’ louis xii and his queen, and among other less interesting royal remains, the bones of hugh, comte de paris, father of hugh capet; and so on the work went, till one tires even of the details of the preservation of this or that king or queen. can anything be more shocking than to know that all the horrors of decay and decomposition will remain even after two or three centuries have passed over the lifeless form, and that, supposing one has the ill luck to be thus coffined and one’s body removed, ‘a black fluid, emitting a noxious smell,’ will run from out our last home, as was the case with those royal remains 203during that hot summer month at st. denis in 1793?”

the rev. h. r. haweis says:—

“you cannot preserve the buried dead securely from the outrages of the living. the people who dig graves, or are employed to remove bones, are not as a rule scrupulous, but they are very often drunk. the other day only a number of wild irish were so employed at new york; the bodies were offered for sale on the ground to a party of medical students. these young fellows had the grace to shrink from the horrors they then witnessed. one coffin was found full of a heavy decomposed mass, like spermaceti; it was used to grease the axle-tree of the cart. another coffin contained the body of a woman, aged 20, as the inscription announced. she had rested for 107 years—laid there with what tears, what tender regrets of husband, or lover, or mother! but now her head was rudely seized and kicked like a football from one ruffian to the other.”

but the “sweet sleep and calm rest” of the dead was not only broken by the ruthless hand of man, but was even disturbed by the elements.

on the 26th of august, 1854, at herrnlauersitz (guhrauer kreis) more than 100 corpses were washed out of their graves by an inundation. many of them remained in their coffins. they were found afterward in gardens, yards, fields, in the woods, and even in houses, whither they had floated. sixteen days passed before the bodies were all collected; some were recovered whole, others in parts; then they were buried in one large pit forever (?), as the officiating clergyman announced.

“i was long since cured of a belief in earth burial,” 204says a very intelligent army officer, “by an appalling sight i witnessed when going down the mississippi. there had been a great freshet, during which the river had so changed its course as to invade a cemetery and dislodge its occupants, who, in various stages of decomposition—the coffins having rotted or been torn asunder by the torrent—were floating down the stream. it was a ghastly spectacle.”

i don’t think that the people along the banks of the mighty river were particularly edified with the sight. and if, at the time, they would have known of some other mode of disposing of the dead, i am sure they would have adopted it without hesitation.

a similar occurrence happened at kansas city, mo., in february, 1886. the missouri river being blocked by ice, caused the channel to rise and sweep the lower part of an island away that lies opposite the city, and upon which is the small-pox hospital. about 20 graves were in this part of the island; they were opened by the flood and the corpses that had been interred in them swam down the river in their coffins. these bodies had been buried only since one year. the people on both sides of the missouri, from which the city derives its water-supply, were quite agitated over this affair.

at the same time the cemetery at copiano, chili, was inundated; many of the vaults were full of water and the coffins were floating around, while many of the common graves had been completely cleared of their contents.

the most horrible feature of the situation was that the water which flows from the cemetery goes into the river which supplies the inhabitants with water for domestic purposes.

205the quarterly review (no. xlii, p. 380) states:—

“many tons of human bones every year are sent from london to the north, where they are crushed in mills constructed for the purpose, and used as manure!”

and a correspondent of the times writes to his journal from alexandria:—

“the other day at sakhara, i saw nine camels pacing down from the mummy pits to the bank of the river, laden with nets in which were femora, tibia, and other bony bits of the human form, some two hundred-weight in each net, on each side of the camel. among the pits there were people busily engaged in searching out, sifting, and sorting the bones which almost crust the ground. on inquiry, i learned that the cargoes with which the camels were laden would be sent down to alexandria, and thence be shipped to english manufacturers. they make excellent manure, i am told, particularly for swedes and other turnips. the trade is brisk and has been for years, and may go on for many more. it is a strange fate to preserve one’s skeleton for thousands of years, in order that there may be fine southdowns and cheviots in a distant land!”

gen. w. t. sherman once visited the catacombs under ancient syracuse. his guide informed him that there were a million interments, but that the contents of every chamber had been sold for manure. the general asked him if a single grave had been spared; not one.

only a short time ago a london florist bought two cart-loads of mould, and found it full of legs, arms, skulls, and other human bones. he brought an action against the person from whom he purchased the soil for misrepresenting his “goods.”

on feb. 9, 1874, the railroad tunnel under the cemetery 206of père la chaise at paris, france, caved in with a thundering crash, forming a pell-mell mass of coffins and bodies, earth and débris.

in our own country the rest of the dead is fast becoming from year to year more insecure.

the medical herald affirms: “as the increasing necessities of man create new demands for space, graveyards are demolished and converted to other uses. in louisville, ky., within the past fifteen years, two extensive cemeteries have thus been transformed,—one on portland avenue into a common, and one in jefferson street into a park, called baxter square.

“now the youth stroll along the graded walks and sit in the shaded nooks, upon the very ground in which the bodies of their ancestry have decayed. the sacred spot of last repose of grandparents is now the mirthful scene of the nocturnal orgies of irreverent grandchildren. cremation would render this impossible, and place any profanation of the sacred memorials of the dead beyond the public eye.”

recently two burial-grounds,—one in new england, the other in pennsylvania,—caved in, and the thickly crowded bones of many generations were exposed to view.

in my native city, detroit, four cemeteries, to my knowledge, were closed and given up to the living. in every case save one these burial-grounds were excavated, the coffins, bones, semi-decomposed bodies, etc., carted away, and business blocks erected in their stead. in one of these cemeteries a brother of mine was buried; what became of his last remains i know not. possibly they were used to fertilize a field; or perhaps cupidity tempted men to steal his body for the purpose of dissection; 207or an unscrupulous grave-digger may have sent his bones to a bone-mill, vended his coffin-plate, and used his coffin for firewood. who knows? i would give a great deal if the relics of my brother, decently inurned, could be with me; but alas! i must give up expectations of ever finding any trace of him again.

the proposed detroit crematorium.

208within a quite recent period at least two graveyards in montreal have been torn up to make public squares; and it is not likely that any more respect will be shown to cemeteries in the future than there has been in the past.

dr. wm. porter says: “i well remember, when a boy, seeing our old sexton exhume a body buried for several years,—that of a strong man called away in the prime of life. the rotting coffin was slowly lifted from its damp bed, and the lid being broken, we saw within a horrible mass of putrefaction. matted hair and decomposing grave-clothes but poorly covered the blackened skeleton as it lay in the once handsome casket, now reeking with the emanation of its loathsome contents. yet this had been a beautiful grave; roses had blossomed upon it, and the arbor vit? had whispered to it. there would be but little plea for the grave on the ground of sentiment could we see the changes there taking place; there would be few, if any, who would not choose that the body, after faithful service, should be purified by fire, rather than rot in such a grave.”

we are accustomed to consider sacred the venerable remains of our dead, and the simplest memorial of a departed friend makes us, if but for moments, sad. therefore, all who lay any claim to civilization or humanity must be vehemently opposed to the profane exhibition of the bones of the deceased in bone-houses, where they lie pell-mell in a heap, or catacombs, where they stand braced against the wall, lie in their coffins, or are put away in niches, i.e., on the shelf, and where any dawdling fool may inspect them for a small sum of money.

the rev. h. r. haweis states: “where are the thousands 209who were laid in the heart of paris, and who slept for centuries in the graveyards of the innocents, st. eustache, st. etienne de prés? every tourist who takes a return ticket to paris may gaze upon their bones, speculate upon their skulls, and finger their dust. by order of the minister of police they were all dug up in 1787 and carted off to the catacombs. the bones were cleaned and arranged in grim and picturesque symmetry. in one gallery are the arms, legs, and thighs intersected by rows of skulls; the small bones are thrown in heaps behind them. whose dust is separate there? whose ashes are sacred? and yet they were borne to this grotesque sepulchre with priests and tapers.”

as regards disrespect and insult to the dead, a correspondent of the medical times and gazette, writing from bordeaux, says:—

“the earth around one of the oldest churches in bordeaux seems to have something peculiarly antiseptic in its nature, so that the bodies buried during ages were converted into mummies. during some alterations at the beginning of this century these bodies were laid bare, and instead of being decently buried again, they were taken out of their resting-place and ranged upright in a row around a crypt under the bell-tower of st. michael. here they constitute a disgusting and demoralizing show, which is visited by crowds of people, and i am afraid that the clergy of the church are not ashamed to pocket the profits. a rough fellow, a candle on the end of a stick, such as they have in wine-cellars, goes round as showman. he taps and thumps the bodies to show that they are perfectly sound, tough like leather trunks, and not the least brittle. 210‘see here, gentlemen, is a very tall man; see how powerful his muscles must have been, and what excellent calves he has now! the next is the body of a young woman. remark the excellent preservation of her chemise, though it was buried 400 years ago; and see, it is trimmed with lace. the next, gentlemen, is a priest; you can see his soutane with the buttons on it. there is a woman with a dreadful chasm in her breast; she had a cancer. the next four are a family poisoned with mushrooms; observe the contortions of their faces from the coliques they suffered. see, next, a very old man with his wig still awry upon his pate. the next is a poor misérable that was buried alive. see how his head is turned to one side and the body half turned round, in the frantic effort to get out of the coffin, with his mouth open and gasping.’ (it is quite true that the attitude is singular, but it does not warrant the inference which the showman draws.) but enough of this disgusting mercenary exhibition of the human body in its lowest state of humiliation. if the guardians of consecrated sepulchres, in which people have paid an honest fee to be buried, are to dig them up and cart them off as in england, or make a show of them as here, why, i can only say that cremation will gain a good many converts. any one would prefer urn burial to the chance of being thus made a spectacle. so good, too, it must be for the rising population to take off the edge of any salutary horror they may feel at death and decay, or of reverence for the dead.”

there are many such shows where the human corpse is used for the purpose of eliciting money from a public loving horrible and sensational sights. i need but mention the catacombs of rome, or the bleikeller of bremen, 211to conjure up before your mind all the terrible scenes which the clerical and medical gentlemen whom i have just cited have pictured.

there is another way in which the dead are insulted, another mode by which their graves are desecrated. the monuments which are erected upon the last resting-place of the deceased to perpetuate their memory are sometimes moved about till they no longer mark the spot where the person whose name they bear was interred. here, then, all the good intentions of friends are set at naught; their expense, their attention, is all in vain. the tombstones are moved, and when they become yellow with age they are broken up to act as headstones for some public highway. that this does not hold good of european countries only, but also of american ones, is proven by our honored and beloved “autocrat of the breakfast table,” oliver wendell holmes, who declares: “the most accursed act of vandalism ever committed within my knowledge was the uprooting of the ancient gravestones in three at least of our city burial-grounds, and one at least just outside the city, and planting them in rows to suit the taste for symmetry of the perpetrators. the stones have been shuffled about like chessmen, and nothing short of the day of judgment will tell whose dust lies beneath any of those records meant by affection to mark one small spot as sacred to some cherished memory. shame! shame! shame! that is all i can say. it was on public thoroughfares, under the eye of authority, that this infamy was enacted. i should like to see the gravestones which have been disturbed or removed and the ground levelled, leaving the flat tombstones. epitaphs were never famous for truth, but the old reproach of 212‘here lies’ never had such a wholesale illustration as in these outraged burial-places, where the stone does lie above, and the bones do not lie beneath.”

now be candid! do you not think that facts like these go a good way to endorse cremation? there would be no need of disturbing the dead, there would be no vulgar exhibition of the deceased, after incineration would have been introduced. there would, in fact, be nothing to do violence to that most sacred and deep-rooted feeling of humanity,—respect for the dead.

among all the outrages on the dead, that committed by the hand of ghoulish desecration is, by far, the worst. body-snatching, for providing anatomical institutions with material, has become a business in the united states; love of gain being, as usual, the cause. and not only are bodies abducted to supply medical colleges, but persons are liable to be murdered for the same reason. in february of 1884 two negroes were arrested at cincinnati, who, after a severe examination, confessed to having killed an old man, his wife, and his adopted daughter; after which they sold the corpses to the ohio medical college, receiving $15 for each.

but some grave-robberies are perpetrated simply for revenge, or else for pure deviltry. a special despatch to the detroit free press, from point pleasant, w. va., relates an instance of this kind as follows:—

“salt creek, a small stream, empties into the ohio river three miles south of this. two miles from the mouth is a church called pisgah, attached to which is a burying-ground. this morning when the sexton went to dig a grave, he was horrified to find half a dozen graves open and the bodies taken from their coffins and 213stretched on the ground. in one or two instances the limbs were severed from the bodies. the graves had been opened without regard to family. the bodies lay in one place arranged in the shape of a greek cross. there is no clue to the perpetrators of the sacrilegious offense, and no reason can be imagined. the bodies evidently had been exposed for a day or two.”

the funeral car of the late a. t. stewart was followed by six carriages laden with gorgeous floral offerings; yet in spite of the more than regal magnificence of his funeral, and of his great wealth, only a few days later his body was stolen by sacrilegious robbers, and has never been recovered. need i remind you of the mortification our nation felt on hearing that guards had to be set to watch over the graves of our lamented presidents, lincoln and garfield.

not only in our country is body-snatching a frequent offense, but also in england, as will be seen by the sequent quotation from mr. walker (p. 202):—

“an undertaker who had charge of a funeral went with a friend into the vault of a chapel. a coffin recently deposited was taken under his arm with the greatest ease. his friend, doubting, poised the coffin, and was affected to tears from the conviction that the body had been removed. several other coffins were in the same condition.”

the corpse of the late earl of crawford was stolen from the dun echt mortuary chapel in aberdeen.

there is one case of outrage on the dead on record that, for hideousness and devilishness, surpasses all others. i refer to that grave-digger of koenigsberg, prussia, who fed his swine with human bodies.

one of the most abominable modes of outrage on the 214dead is that where men (beasts is the proper designation for them) have gratified their animal passions by outraging the fresh corpses of young and pretty women. it seems incredible, but this violation was known in the most ancient times, and is not yet extinct in the present age.

herodotus already reports in the 89th chapter of his second book, that the egyptians of old did not deliver up the bodies of ladies of quality or the remains of young and beautiful women to the embalmers until decomposition had set in, so that these men could not have coition with them. for it was said that an embalmer had once surprised a colleague in the act of outraging the corpse of a youthful woman, and had reported the case to the authorities, who punished the inhuman offender promptly.

the evening edition of the national zeitung (published at berlin) of nov. 21, 1874 (no. 544), relates that in lichtenberg, which is situated near the capital of the german empire, in the night from the 4th to 5th of november, two children, recently buried, were disinterred and removed from their coffins. on the morning of november the 5th the corpses were found on the ground near the graves,—the shrouds were torn,—and one body, that of a little two-year-old girl, bore all the signs of a recent outrage.

all these sacrilegious outrages on the dead could be obviated by incineration. the avaricious would not be tempted by a small quantity of ashes in a plain urn. there would be no valuable clothing and no costly jewelry, ordinarily inhumed with some bodies, to excite rapacity.

furthermore, cremation promises the greatest possible 215security from vandalism. when the urn containing the remains, i.e., ashes, of our friends or relatives is placed in a niche in the columbarium, it can be easily guarded. one watchman, in communication (by electrical alarm) with the police department of the city, will suffice to protect the urn-hall of a columbarium. the same cannot be said of a cemetery; it would take at least a company of watchmen to properly guard the grounds of a medium-sized graveyard.

some day we will have westminster abbeys on a small scale, where, amid grand monuments and costly urns, the simple tablet of wood shall have its place, its inscription remaining legible, not being blotted out by the elements, as it is to-day. each church could have its own urn-hall, and the burial ceremonies could be conducted according to the belief of the deceased.

the greatest foe incineration has to contend with is the widespread antipathy against it, entertained and nursed by people who are governed more by sentiment than by reason. which is the most poetical mode of disposal of the dead, cremation or burial? think! think!! think!!! and you cannot fail to find out.

mr. w. robinson, f.l.s., says:—

“the simplest urn ever made for the ashes of a roman soldier is far more beautiful than the costly funeral trappings used in the most imposing burial pageant of modern times. of urns of a more ambitious kind, the variety and beauty are often remarkable, as may be seen in our national and various private collections. it would be a gain to art if some of the money spent on coffins, which rot unseen in the earth, were devoted to such urns, which do not decay, and which might be 216placed in the light of day, and perhaps teach a lesson in art as well as bear a record.”

and the medical herald declares:—

“an urn of granite, alabaster, malachite, or one of the precious metals, with the life-sized statue of great men placed in the halls of state, would much more befittingly express the state’s regard, and preserve and perpetuate the grateful tribute a christian people would pay their memories, than any number of columns and shafts reared in cemeteries, which must in time be demolished.”

which is the more ?sthetic, a small heap of pure, pearl-white ashes, or a grim skeleton? certainly those who have seen a decomposing body, or human remains in the state of adipocere, would not call them ?sthetic. contrast with the ghastly skeleton, now commonly employed as an illustration of death, the representation of death by the ancients,—the boy with the inverted torch. which is the more refined?

the strong tombs, of such a grandeur and beauty—proof against the gnawing teeth of time—mortuary monuments,—as we shall not be able to leave to our offspring, testify to the pious veneration for the dead of the ancients. i need but remind you of the grand pyramids, the extensive necropolis at thebes, the mausoleums and columbaria of the via appia in rome, to cause you to perceive the truth of my statement.

the ancients thought of the dead as being turned into shades; when we think of them we imagine rattling skeletons. the stupid and disgusting glorification of the skeleton did not originate with christ; it is a product of the middle ages, as are the many tales of witches 217and ghosts that are related, especially in connection with churchyards, and still cling to them to-day.

the cremationists of to-day, who propose to substitute a decent ?sthetic and sanitary mode of disposal of the dead for the present harmful and loathsome custom of inhumation, are repulsed, met by sentimental objections, are even called monsters without religion, without reverence for the dead.

but the apostles of incineration are as far removed from striving to suppress and murder such sacred feelings as is dan from beersheba. on the contrary, they believe that cremation is far more conducive to a pious veneration for the dead than interment.

what would you rather look upon, that horrible remnant of mortality, for which, as bossuet says, “there has been found no name in any human language,” or the innocuous, pearly ash in the memorial urn of marble, alabaster, or one of the precious metals?

cremation is humane, healthful, and, most of all methods, consonant to the natural impulse of christianized veneration for the dead; serving and honoring that impulse by preventing the exposure of the dead to those visible elemental and chemical conditions and operations which breed a revolt of the feelings, and tend to surround the subject with an atmosphere of abhorrence.

undoubtedly, one result of adopting generally the in-cinerative burial, will be a disassociation in our ideas from that existing and shocking conception of horrible bodily decay, in which almost every thought bestowed upon the dead is necessarily enveloped, and we will learn to contemplate the body with the cheerful philosophy of the persian poet, omar khayyam:—

218“‘tis but a tent where takes his one day’s rest

a sultan to the realms of death addrest;

the sultan rises, and the dark ferrash

strikes and prepares it for another guest.”

at a burial there is but darkness, at a cremation rosy light unaccompanied by fustiness; the dead is really reduced to ashes, and with him the time-honored saying, “peace to his ashes,” is not a hollow phrase, as it is with those who are interred.

those who do not wish to miss religious and other ceremonies at incinerations may use any form of burial service they like, and those who desire to dispense with them may do so. and those who already have beloved dead in the cemeteries may rest by their side when the end is come, for the ashes can be interred as well as the body.

a sicilian poet suggested that along with the ashes thus buried might be deposited the seeds of some flower,—such as heart’s-ease, violets, or forget-me-nots,—so that when it sprung up, the friends and relatives might gather the blossoms from year to year as a dear memorial of the life that lasts beyond the tomb; and tennyson’s (“in memoriam”) poetic verses would be realized:—

“and from his ashes may be made

the violet of his native land.”

only when cremation is practiced, can a family obtain the remains (ashes, of course) of its friends and relatives who have died in a foreign land; only then it is possible to deposit such remains with those of the ancestors.

with the chinese it is customary to always inter the 219dead in their native land; when they are far away from home they inhume their deceased temporarily, but at the earliest opportunity remove them to china,—a usage that deserves to be imitated.

the small urn containing the parental ashes may be taken by migratory man into the new world or the old, always preserved as the most sacred relic of the family.

how much more beautiful and better would it not be to have the remains of our kin near at hand, in the house. only then we would be reminded of them every day. every building could be made to contain a mortuary chamber. then we would know our dead shielded from the elements. now, when the storm rages and the rain pours down in torrents, we imagine that he or she whom we have recently buried is yet subject to the inclemency of the weather. maxime du camp relates a touching example of the power of illusion. on one of his walks in the paris cemeteries he discovered a young lady kneeling before a tombstone, who was singing (interrupted frequently by her sobs) an aria from an opera. when she observed him, after she had finished she said, excusing herself involuntarily: “there my dear mother lies buried! she loved to hear this aria!”

that these questions which i have just briefly considered are of considerable moment is demonstrated by the experience of the rev. brooke lambert, who says:—

“it has been my misfortune to lose four of my nearest relations in different parts of the world. it has been also a subject of regret to me that their remains lie so far off. i care little for the fate which happens to their bodies; and yet, had such a practice as cremation 220been in use, it would sometimes have been a comfort to feel that i had their ashes with me. collected in an urn, they might either repose in columbaria, like those at rome, or in a mortuary chapel in my own house.”

this citation brings to my mind a beautiful epigram of count platen, who, as you undoubtedly know, was called the favorite of the ladies. it is impossible to translate it, and therefore i will content myself with mentioning the contents. it entreats the sacred flames to return, and to purify the air which death has contaminated; it requests those about to bury to reduce to ashes the body of their friend; and it rejoices that the remains of our beloved will again rest in a clean and decent urn near our abodes.

there are many authors who, in their works, have expressed themselves in favor of cremation. among the first to do this was a. f. ferdinand von kotzebue, a german writer of note, who glorified incineration in his novel “die leiden der ortenberg’schen familie.”

there are those who are afraid that cremation will do away with all that is mortuary in poetry and song. for instance, they say: “what will become of gray’s elegy in a country churchyard? allusion to burial runs so inseparably through its verses that nothing would be left of them were it eliminated.” as a work of art gray’s masterpiece will live forever; but if reason or common sense is applied to it, i doubt whether it has a right to exist, even now. i admit that the poem is beautiful, that it is grand; but it is all sentiment—nothing more.

there is now already a new literature, prose as well 221as poetry, accumulating. the “cremazione dei cadaveri” already has its poets—principally in italy. professor giambattista polizzi of girgenti dedicated (in march, 1873) a poem on cineration to signora emilia salsi when her husband, doctor giuseppi salsi, died and was cremated. he praised incineration as the best mode to dispose of the dead, and to preserve the remains of the departed. in january, 1874, civelli’s printing house at milan, italy, turned out 22 stanzas on incineration, in the milanese dialect. the anonymous author is a patron of cremation. dr. moretti of cannero published an excellent poem on cremation in the annali di chimica of 1872. a german author, writing under the pseudonym of “dranmor,” sent forth some very good verses on the same subject, as did also the celebrated dr. justinus kerner.

mr. william eassie laments:—

“it is a matter of regret that those of our own poets who have been in favor 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.”

the objections to cineration put forward by the sentimentalists are really of no consequence at all; they are far too trivial to be worth even only superficial consideration. i have only mentioned them, because i am aware of the strong hold that sentiment has on most people, and because they allowed of a comparison between burial and cremation, which is decidedly in favor of the latter.

222dr. e. j. bermingham of new york city hits the nail on the head by saying:—

“we believe the abhorrence entertained by many, of cremation, depends to a very great extent on the universal tendency of individuals and nations to resent any interference with established customs, to reject any innovation simply because it is an innovation.”

sentimental objection to incineration resolves into this: we are the slaves of custom. we love to walk in the old wornout paths, and when some one discovers a new way that is much shorter, and by which the destination is reached much sooner, we are loathe to use it. first only a few adopt it, then more and more travel over its surface, until finally the old path becomes obsolete.

to what an extent people are governed by their time-honored customs was illustrated by the ancient historian herodotus (see muses, book iii, chap. 88), as follows:—

“if all people were to choose the most beautiful among the customs, they would after close examination select their own, because every nation believes that its own customs are the best and the most beautiful. one therefore cannot imagine that anybody but a madman would ridicule such matters. when darius reigned he summoned the greeks then in his land, and when they came, he requested them to name the price they would take to eat their deceased parents. they replied they would not commit such a crime for all the gold in his empire. then he caused the kalatians (natives of india), who were in the habit of eating their parental dead, to appear before him; when they arrived, he questioned them (in presence of the greeks, to whom 223every word was interpreted) how much remuneration they would want to burn their dead. they cried aloud, and bade him not to think of such a sacrilege. thus custom rules. i believe pindar to be right when he asserts in one of his poems that custom is the king of all.”