172 
rOPULAR SCIENCE REVIEW. 
remove from our sight the costly pageantries of burial which 
disgrace our civilisation. On all these points of argument, 
barring the first, sentiment rather than science prevails. In 
respect to the first or sanitary part, science teaches that burial 
may be made as protective of the living as cremation, and with 
that expression of fact, the only fact before us, I leave this 
part of the subject. 
The disadvantages of disposal of the dead by embalmment are 
many. To embalm a few bodies only, and thus to make the 
process what may be termed a luxury, can do no injury to the 
community ; but if the process were extended, and the surface of 
the earth were transformed into a standing-place for the dead as 
well as the living, the inconvenience would soon be felt beyond 
endurance, and the economy of nature would be disturbed as 
effectively as if the masses of body were dispersed in gaseous 
products from the fire. 
Embalming has, however, in these days been brought to such 
perfection that it may, when required, be effected without danger 
to anyone except to the operator. It is performed rapidly by 
the process of injection of a preserving fluid into the arteries 
of the dead body. This solution consists of chloride of zinc dis- 
solved in water ; and when the process is effectively carried out, 
the body is left with all its tissues solidified, so that it is nearly 
as solid as stone itself. 
In the case of persons who die far from their home, and 
whose friends wish to have them retained unburied until they 
can be interred in the same burial-ground with other members 
of the family, the feeling which dictates embalming is fairly 
gratified. In the case of unknown persons who are found dead, 
and around whose deaths some doubts hang which nothing but 
identity can solve, the feeling which dictates the preservation 
of the body may be sanctioned by the requirements of public 
justice. But when the desire for embalmment is meant only to 
gratify a morbid craving on the part of a few living persons to 
retain the mere animal remains of the dead, then the conditions 
are changed, and the only circumstances that can justify the 
demand fully are those which relate to history. It may be 
urged that great historical personages may be embalmed with 
advantage ; it may be urged that persons who are not in any 
sense great, but who from some peculiarity of physical con- 
struction are of interest to the natural historian, may be em- 
balmed with advantage. Here I think the argument in favour 
of embalmment rightfully ends. 
Thus in respect to the general question of the disposal of the 
dead, the common sentiment, and, as I think, the common 
