Chapter 17

“Faithful souls would be contented with the word of God which bids us: ‘Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’ But also we are drawn by the faults of our heretical opponents to do things unlawful, to scale heights inaccessible, to speak out what is unspeakable, to presume where we ought not. And whereas it is by faith alone that we should worship the Father and reverence the Son, and be filled with the Spirit, we are now obliged to strain our weak human language in the utterance of things beyond its scope; forced into this evil procedure by the evil procedure of our foes. Hence what should be matter of silent religious meditation must now needs be imperilled by exposition in words.”

The province of reverent theology is to aid accurate thinking by the use of metaphysical or psychological terms. Its definitions are no more an end in themselves than an analysis of good drinking water, which by itself leaves us thirsty but encourages us to drink. So the Nicene Creed is the analysis of the river of the water of life of which the Sermon on the Mount is a description, flowing on from age to age, freely offered to the thirsty souls of men.

This justification of the ancient creeds carries with it the justification of later confessions so far as they answered questions which would be fatal to religion if they were not answered. As Principal Stewart puts it very clearly: “The answer given is based on the philosophy or science of the period. It does not necessarily form part of the religion itself, but is the best which with the materials at its command, in its own defence and in its love for truth, the religion (and its advocates) can give. But the answers may be superseded by better answers, or they may be rendered unnecessary because the questions are no longer asked. Thus the Calvinism of the 16th and 17th centuries elaborated answers to questions, which if no attempt had been made to answer them, would have perplexed earnest souls and condemned the system; but many parts of the system are now obsolete, because the conditions which suggested the questions which they sought to answer no longer exist or have no longer any interest or importance.”

Literature.—See J. Pearson,Exposition of the Creed(new ed., 1849); A. E. Burn,Introduction to the Creeds(1899), andThe Athanasian Creedin vol. iv. ofTexts and Studies(1896); H. B. Swete,The Apostles’ Creed(1899); F. Kattenbusch,Das apostolische Symbol(1894-1900); C. A. Heurtley,Harmonia Symbolica(1858): C. P. Caspari,Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel(Christiania, 1866); andAlte und neue Quellen(1879). T. Zahn,Das apostolische Symbolum(1893); C. A. Swainson,The Nicene and Apostles’ Creed(1875); G. D. W. Ommanney,The Athanasian Creed(1897); B. F. Westcott,The Historic Faith(1882); J. Jayne,The Athanasian Creed(1905); J. A. Robinson,The Athanasian Creed(1905); E. C. S. Gibson,The Three Creeds(1908); F. J. A. Hort,Two Dissertations(1876); D. Waterland,Crit. Hist.edited by E. King (Oxford, 1870); F. Loofs and A. Harnack articles in Herzog-Hauck’sRealencyklopädie(“Athanasianum” and “Konstantino-politanisches Symbol”) (1896), &c.; K. Künstle,Antipriscilliana(Freiburg i. B., 1905); A. Stewart,Croall Lectures(in the press); S. G. Green,The Christian Creed(1898); P. Hall,Harmony of Protestant Confessions(London, 1842); F. Kattenbusch,Confessionskunde(Freiburg i. B., 1890); Winex’sConfessions of Christendom(Eng. trans., Edinburgh, 1865); A. Seeberg,Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit(Leipzig, 1903); F. Wiegand,Die Stellung des apostolischen Symbols(Leipzig, 1899); H. Goodwin,The Foundations of the Creed(London, 1889); T. H. Bindley,The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith(London, 1906); J. Kunze,Das nicänisch-konstantinopolitanische Symbol; S. Baeumer,Das apostolische Glaubensbekenntnis(Mainz, 1893); B. Döxholt,Das Taufsymbol. der alten Kirche(Paderborn, 1898); L. Hahn,Bibliothek der Symbole u. Glaubensregeln(Breslau, 1897); A. C. McGiffert,The Apostles’ Creed(Edinburgh, 1902); and F. Loofs,Symbolik(Leipzig, 1902).

(A. E. B.)

1Jevons,Introd. to the History of Religion, p. 394.2Sacred Books of the East, xxxi.3Personality, Human and Divine(cheap edition), p. 36.4Ib. p. 38.5Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit, p. 85. Zahn’s reasoned argument stands in contrast to the blind reliance on tradition shown by Macdonald,The Symbol of the Apostles, and the fanciful reconstruction of the primitive creed by Baeumer, Harnack or Seeberg.6McGiffert, on the other hand, argues that the Roman Creed was composed to meet the errors of Marcion, p. 58 ff. He omits, however, to mention this, which is Zahn’s strongest argument.7It is probable that “one” has dropped out of the first clause. Zahn acutely suggests that it was omitted in the time of Zephyrinus to counteract Monarchian teaching such as the formula: “believe in one God, Jesus Christ.”8Anecdota Maredsolana, iii. iii. p. 199.9Dörholt has shown that Petavius (d. 1652) was the first to remark that the so-called Constantinopolitan form was quoted by Epiphanius before the Council met, but was not able to explain the fact.10Burn, “Note on the Old Latin text,”Journal of Theol. Studies.11e.g.Cod. Escurial J.c. 12,saec.x. xi. In Cod. Matritensis, p. 21 (1872),saec.x. xi., and Cod. Matritensis 10041 (begun in the yearA.D.948), the words are omitted under the heading council of Constantinople but inserted under the heading council of Toledo, in the former MS., above the line and in a later hand, which shows conclusively how the interpolation crept in.12The first person who doubted the authorship seems to have been Joachim Camerarius, 1551, who was so fiercely attacked in consequence that he omitted the passage from his Latin edition.Zeitschrift für K.G.x. (1889), p. 497.13In response to an invitation issued by the archbishop of Canterbury, acting on a resolution of the Lambeth Conference of 1908, a committee of eminent scholars met in April and May 1909 for the purpose of preparing a new translation. Their report, issued on the 18th of October, stated that they had “endeavoured to represent the Latin original more exactly in a large number of cases.” The general effect of the new version is to make the creed more comprehensible,e.g.by the substitution of “infinite” and “reasoning” for such archaisms as “incomprehensible” and “reasonable.” The sense of the damnatory clauses has, however, not been weakened. [Ed.]14Illingworth,Personality, Human and Divine, p. 40.15The Christian Creed and the Creeds of Christendom, p. 181.16Gibson,The Thirty-nine Articles, p. 2.

1Jevons,Introd. to the History of Religion, p. 394.

2Sacred Books of the East, xxxi.

3Personality, Human and Divine(cheap edition), p. 36.

4Ib. p. 38.

5Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit, p. 85. Zahn’s reasoned argument stands in contrast to the blind reliance on tradition shown by Macdonald,The Symbol of the Apostles, and the fanciful reconstruction of the primitive creed by Baeumer, Harnack or Seeberg.

6McGiffert, on the other hand, argues that the Roman Creed was composed to meet the errors of Marcion, p. 58 ff. He omits, however, to mention this, which is Zahn’s strongest argument.

7It is probable that “one” has dropped out of the first clause. Zahn acutely suggests that it was omitted in the time of Zephyrinus to counteract Monarchian teaching such as the formula: “believe in one God, Jesus Christ.”

8Anecdota Maredsolana, iii. iii. p. 199.

9Dörholt has shown that Petavius (d. 1652) was the first to remark that the so-called Constantinopolitan form was quoted by Epiphanius before the Council met, but was not able to explain the fact.

10Burn, “Note on the Old Latin text,”Journal of Theol. Studies.

11e.g.Cod. Escurial J.c. 12,saec.x. xi. In Cod. Matritensis, p. 21 (1872),saec.x. xi., and Cod. Matritensis 10041 (begun in the yearA.D.948), the words are omitted under the heading council of Constantinople but inserted under the heading council of Toledo, in the former MS., above the line and in a later hand, which shows conclusively how the interpolation crept in.

12The first person who doubted the authorship seems to have been Joachim Camerarius, 1551, who was so fiercely attacked in consequence that he omitted the passage from his Latin edition.Zeitschrift für K.G.x. (1889), p. 497.

13In response to an invitation issued by the archbishop of Canterbury, acting on a resolution of the Lambeth Conference of 1908, a committee of eminent scholars met in April and May 1909 for the purpose of preparing a new translation. Their report, issued on the 18th of October, stated that they had “endeavoured to represent the Latin original more exactly in a large number of cases.” The general effect of the new version is to make the creed more comprehensible,e.g.by the substitution of “infinite” and “reasoning” for such archaisms as “incomprehensible” and “reasonable.” The sense of the damnatory clauses has, however, not been weakened. [Ed.]

14Illingworth,Personality, Human and Divine, p. 40.

15The Christian Creed and the Creeds of Christendom, p. 181.

16Gibson,The Thirty-nine Articles, p. 2.

CREEK(Mid. Eng.crikeorcreke, common to many N. European languages), a small inlet on a low coast, an inlet in a river formed by the mouth of a small stream, a shallow narrow harbour for smallvessels. In America and Australia especially there are many long streams which can be everywhere forded and sometimes dry up, and are navigable only at their tidal estuaries, mere brooks in width which are of great economic importance. They form complete river-systems, and are the only supply of surface water over many thousand square miles. They are at some seasons a mere chain of “water-holes,” but occasionally they are strongly flooded. Since exploration began at the coast and advanced inland, it is probable that the explorers, advancing up the narrow inlets or “creeks,” used the same word for the streams which flowed into these as they followed their courses upward into the country. The early settlers would use the same word for that portion of the stream which flowed through their own land, and in Australia particularly the word has the same local meaning as brook in England. On a map the whole system is called a river,e.g.the river Wakefield in South Australia givesits name to Port Wakefield, but the stream is always locally called “the creek.”

CREEKorMUSKOGEE(Muscogee)INDIANS(Algonquinmaskoki, “creeks,” in reference to the many creeks and rivulets running through their country), a confederacy of North American Indians, who formerly occupied most of Alabama and Georgia. The confederacy seems to have been in existence in 1540, and then included the Muskogee, the ruling tribe, whose language was generally spoken, the Alabama, the Hichiti, Koasati and others of the Muskogean stock, with the Yuchi and the Natchez, a large number of Shawano and the Seminoles of Florida as a branch. The Creeks were agriculturists living in villages of log houses. They were brave fighters, but during the 18th century only had one struggle, of little importance, with the settlers. The Creek War of 1813-14 was, however, serious. The confederacy was completely defeated in three hard-fought battles, and the peace treaty which followed involved the cession to the United States government of most of the Creek country. In the Civil War the Creeks were divided in their allegiance and suffered heavily in the campaigns. The so-called Creek nation is now settled in Oklahoma, but independent government virtually ceased in 1906. In 1904 they numbered some 16,000, some two-thirds being of pure or mixed Creek blood.

CREETOWN,a seaport of Kirkcudbrightshire, Scotland. Pop. (1901) 991. It is situated near the head of Wigtown Bay, 18 m. W. of Castle Douglas, but 23½ m. by the Portpatrick and Wigtownshire Railway. The granite quarries in the vicinity constitute the leading industry, the stone for the Liverpool docks and other public works having been obtained from them. The village dates from 1785, and it became a burgh of barony in 1792. Sir Walter Scott laid part of the scene ofGuy Manneringin this neighbourhood. Dr Thomas Brown, the metaphysician (1778-1820), was a native of the parish (Kirkmabreck) in which Creetown lies.

CREEVEY, THOMAS(1768-1838), English politician, son of William Creevey, a Liverpool merchant, was born in that city in March 1768. He went to Queen’s College, Cambridge, and graduated as seventh wrangler in 1789. The same year he became a student at the Inner Temple, and was called to the bar in 1794. In 1802 he entered parliament through the duke of Norfolk’s nomination as member for Thetford, and married a widow with six children, Mrs Ord, who had a life interest in a comfortable income. Creevey was a Whig and a follower of Fox, and his active intellect and social qualities procured him a considerable intimacy with the leaders of this political circle. In 1806, when the brief “All the Talents” ministry was formed, he was given the office of secretary to the Board of Control; in 1830, when next his party came into power, Creevey, who had lost his seat in parliament, was appointed by Lord Grey treasurer of the ordnance; and subsequently Lord Melbourne made him treasurer of Greenwich hospital. After 1818, when his wife died, he had very slender means of his own, but he was popular with his friends and was well looked after by them; Greville, writing of him in 1829, remarks that “old Creevey is a living proof that a man may be perfectly happy and exceedingly poor. I think he is the only man I know in society who possesses nothing.” He died in February 1838. He is remembered through theCreevey Papers, published in 1903 under the editorship of Sir Herbert Maxwell, which, consisting partly of Creevey’s own journals and partly of correspondence, give a lively and valuable picture of the political and social life of the late Georgian era, and are characterized by an almost Pepysian outspokenness. They are a useful addition and correction to theCroker Papers, written from a Tory point of view. For thirty-six years Creevey had kept a “copious diary,” and had preserved a vast miscellaneous correspondence with such people as Lord Brougham, and his step-daughter, Elizabeth Ord, had assisted him, by keeping his letters to her, in compiling material avowedly for a collection of Creevey Papers in the future. At his death it was found that he had left his mistress, with whom he had lived for four years, his sole executrix and legatee, and Greville notes in hisMemoirsthe anxiety of Brougham and others to get the papers into their hands and suppress them. The diary, mentioned above, did not survive, perhaps through Brougham’s success, and the papers from which Sir Herbert Maxwell made his selection came into his hands from Mrs Blackett Ord, whose husband was the grandson of Creevey’s eldest step-daughter.

CREFELD,orKrefeld, a town of Germany, in the Prussian Rhine province, on the left side of and 3 m. distant from the Rhine, 32 m. N.W. from Cologne, and 15 m. N.W. from Düsseldorf, with which it is connected by a light electric railway. Pop. (1875) 62,905; (1905) 110,410. The town is one of the finest in the Rhine provinces, being well and regularly built, and possessing several handsome squares and attractive public gardens. A striking point about the inner town is that it forms a large rectangle, enclosed by four wide boulevards or “walls.” This feature, rare in German towns, is due to the fact that Crefeld was always an “open place,” and that therefore the circular form of a fortress town could be dispensed with. It has six Roman Catholic and four Evangelical churches (of which the Gothic Friedenskirche with a lofty spire, and the modern church of St Joseph, in the Romanesque style, are alone worth special mention); there are also a Mennonite and an Old Catholic church. The town hall, decorated with frescoes by P. Janssen (b. 1844), and the Kaiser Wilhelm Museum are the most noteworthy secular buildings. In the promenades are monuments to Moltke, Bismarck and Karl Wilhelm, the composer of theWacht am Rhein. Among the schools and scientific institutions of the town the most important is the higher grade technical school for the study of the textile industries, which is attended by students from all parts of the world. Connected with this are subsidiary schools, notably one for dyeing and finishing.

Crefeld is the most important seat of the silk and velvet manufactures in Germany, and in this industry the larger part of the population of town and neighbourhood is employed. There are upwards of 12,000 silk power-looms in operation, and the value of the annual output in this branch alone is estimated at £3,000,000. A special feature is the manufacture of silk for covering umbrellas; while of its velvet manufacture that of velvet ribbon is the chief. The other industries of the town, notably dyeing, stuff-printing and stamping, are very considerable, and there are also engineering and machine shops, chemical, cellulose, soap, and other factories, breweries, distilleries and tanneries. The surrounding fertile district is almost entirely laid out in market gardens. Crefeld is an important railway centre, and has direct communication with Cologne, Rheydt, München-Gladbach and Holland (via Zevenaar).

Crefeld is first mentioned in records of the 12th century. From the emperor Charles IV. it received market rights in 1361 and the status of a town in 1373. It belonged to the counts of Mörs, and was annexed to Prussia, with the countship, in 1702. It remained a place of little importance until the 17th century, when religious persecution drove to it a number of Calvinists and Separatists from Jülich and Berg (followed later by Mennonites), who introduced the manufacture of linen. The number of such immigrants still further increased in the 18th century, when, the silk industry having been introduced from Holland, the town rapidly developed. The French occupation in 1795 and the resulting restriction of trade weighed for a while heavily upon the new industry; but with the termination of the war and the re-establishment of Prussian rule the old prosperity returned.

CREIGHTON, MANDELL(1843-1901), English historian and bishop of London, was born at Carlisle on the 5th of July 1843, being the eldest son of Robert Creighton, a well-to-do upholsterer of that city. He was educated at Durham grammar school and at Merton College, Oxford, where he was elected to a postmastership in 1862. He obtained a first-class inliterae humaniores, and a second in law and modern history in 1866. In the same year he became tutor and fellow of Merton. He was ordained deacon, on his fellowship, in 1870, and priest in 1873; in 1872 he had married Louise, daughter of Robert von Glehn, a London merchant (herself a writer of several successful books of history). Meanwhile he had published several small historical works; but his college and university duties left little time for writing,and in 1875 he accepted the vicarage of Embleton, a parish on the coast of Northumberland, near Dunstanburgh, with an ancient and beautiful church and a fortified parsonage house, and within reach of the fine library in Bamburgh Keep. Here he remained for nearly ten years, acquiring that experience of parochial work which afterwards stood him in good stead, taking private pupils, studying and writing, as well as taking an active part in diocesan business. Here too he planned and wrote the first two volumes of his chief historical work, theHistory of the Papacy; and it was in part this which led to his being elected in 1884 to the newly-founded Dixie professorship of ecclesiastical history at Cambridge, where he went into residence early in 1885. At Cambridge his influence at once made itself felt, especially in the reorganization of the historical school. His lectures and conversation classes were extraordinarily good, possessing as he did the rare gift of kindling the enthusiasm without curbing the individuality of his pupils. In 1886 he combined with other leading historians to found theEnglish Historical Review, of which he was editor for five years. Meanwhile the vacations were spent at Worcester, where he had been nominated a canon residentiary in 1885. In 1891 he was made canon of Windsor; but he never went into residence, being appointed in the same year to the see of Peterborough. He threw himself with characteristic energy into his new work, visiting, preaching and lecturing in every part of his diocese. He also found time to preach and lecture elsewhere, and to deliver remarkable speeches at social functions; he worked hard with Archbishop Benson on the Parish Councils Bill (1894); he became the first president of the Church Historical Society (1894), and continued in that office till his death; he took part in the Laud Commemoration (1895); he represented the English Church at the coronation of the tsar (1896). He even found time for academical work, delivering the Hulsean lectures (1893-1894) and the Rede lecture (1894) at Cambridge, and the Romanes lecture at Oxford (1896).

In 1897, on the translation of Dr Temple to Canterbury, Bishop Creighton was transferred to London. During Dr Temple’s episcopate ritual irregularities of all kinds had grown up, which left a very difficult task to his successor, more especially in view of the growing public agitation on the subject, of which he had to bear the brunt. As was only natural, his studied fairness did not satisfy partisans on either side; and his efforts towards conciliation laid him open to much misunderstanding. His administration, none the less, did much to preserve peace. He strained every nerve to induce his clergy to accept his ruling on the questions of the reservation of the Sacrament and of the ceremonial use of incense in accordance with the archbishop’s judgment in the Lincoln case; but when, during his last illness, a prosecutor brought proceedings against the clergy of five recalcitrant churches, the bishop, on the advice of his archdeacons, interposed his veto. One other effort on behalf of peace may be mentioned. In accordance with a vote of the diocesan conference, the bishop arranged the “Round Table Conference” between representative members of various parties, held at Fulham in October 1900, on “the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist and its expression in ritual,” and a report of its proceedings was published with a preface by him. The true work of his episcopate was, however, positive, not negative. He was an excellent administrator; and his wide knowledge, broad sympathies, and sound common sense, though they placed him outside the point of view common to most of his clergy, made him an invaluable guide in correcting their too often indiscreet zeal. He fully realized the special position of the English Church in Christendom, and firmly maintained its essential teaching. Yet he was no narrow Anglican. His love for the English Church never blinded him to its faults, and no man was less insular than he. As he was a historian before he became a bishop, so it was his historical sense which determined his general attitude as a bishop. It was this, together with a certain native taste for ecclesiastical pomp, which made him—while condemning the unhistorical extravagances of the ultra-ritualists—himself a ritualist. He was the first bishop of London, since the Reformation, to “pontificate” in a mitre as well as the cope, and though no man could have been less essentially “sacerdotal” he was always careful of correct ceremonial usage. His interests and his sympathies, however, extended far beyond the limits of the church. He took a foremost part in almost every good work in his diocese, social or educational, political or religious; while he found time also to cultivate friendly relations with thinking men and women of all schools, and to help all and sundry who came to him for advice and assistance. It was this multiplicity of activities and interests that proved fatal to him. By degrees the work, and especially the routine work, began to tell on him. He fell seriously ill in the late summer of 1900, and died on the 14th of January 1901. He was buried in St Paul’s cathedral, where a statue surmounts his tomb.

He was a man of striking presence and distinguished by a fine courtesy of manner. Hisirrepressibleand often daring humour, together with his frank distaste for much conventional religious phraseology, was a stumbling-block to some pious people. But beneath it all lay a deep seriousness of purpose and a firm faith in what to him were the fundamental truths of religion.

Bishop Creighton’s principal published works are:History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation(5 vols., 1882-1897, new ed.);History of the Papacy from the Great Schism to the Sack of Rome(6 vols., 1897);The Early Renaissance in England(1895);Cardinal Wolsey(1895);Life of Simon de Montfort(1876, new ed. 1895);Queen Elizabeth(1896). He also edited the series ofEpochs of English History, for which he wrote “The Age of Elizabeth” (13th ed., 1897);Historical Lectures and Addresses by Mandell Creighton, &c., edited by Mrs Creighton, were published in 1903.

SeeLife and Letters of Mandell Creighton, &c., by his wife (2 vols., 1904); and the article “Creighton and Stubbs” inChurch Quarterly Reviewfor Oct. 1905.

CREIL,a town of northern France, in the department of Oise, 32 m. N. of Paris on the Northern railway, on which it is an important junction. Pop. (1906) 9234. The town is situated on the Oise, on which it has a busy port. The manufacture of machinery, heavy iron goods and nails, and copper and iron founding, are important industries, and there are important metallurgical and engineering works at Montataire, about 2 m. distant; bricks and tiles and glass are also manufactured, and the Northern railway has workshops here. The church (12th to 15th centuries) is in the Gothic style. There are some traces of a castle in which Charles VI. resided during the period of his madness. Creil played a part of some importance in the wars of the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries.

CRELL(orKrell),NICHOLAS(c. 1551-1601), chancellor of the elector of Saxony, was born at Leipzig, and educated at the university of his native town. About 1580 he entered the service of Christian, the eldest son of Augustus I., elector of Saxony, and when Christian succeeded his father as elector in 1586, became his most influential counsellor. Crell’s religious views were Calvinistic or Crypto-Calvinistic, and both before and after his appointment as chancellor in 1589 he sought to substitute his own form of faith for the Lutheranism which was the accepted religion of electoral Saxony. Calvinists were appointed to many important ecclesiastical and educational offices; a translation of the Bible with Calvinistic annotations was brought out; and other measures were taken by Crell to attain his end. In foreign politics, also, he sought to change the traditional policy of Saxony, acting in unison with John Casimir, administrator of the Rhenish Palatinate, and promising assistance to Henry IV. of France. These proceedings, coupled with the jealousy felt at Crell’s high position and autocratic conduct, made the chancellor very unpopular, and when the elector died in October 1591 he was deprived of his offices and thrown into prison by order of Frederick William, duke of Saxe-Altenburg, the regent for the young elector Christian II. His trial was delayed until 1595, and then, owing partly to the interference of the imperial court of justice (Reichskammergericht), dragged on for six years. At length it was referred by the emperor Rudolph II. to a courtof appeal at Prague, and sentence of death was passed. This was carried out at Dresden on the 9th of October 1601.

See A. V. Richard,Der kurfürstliche sächsische Kanzler Dr Nicolaus Krell(Frankfort, 1860); B. Bohnenstädt,Das Prozessverfahren gegen den kursächsischen Kanzler Dr Nikolaus Krell(Halle, 1901); F. Brandes,Der Kanzler Krell, ein Opfer des Orthodoxismus(Leipzig, 1873); and E. L. T. Henke,Caspar Peucer und Nicolaus Krell(Marburg, 1865).

CREMA,a town and episcopal see of Lombardy, Italy, in the province of Cremona, 26 m. N.E. by rail from the town of Cremona. Pop. (1901) town, 8027; commune, 9609. It is situated on the right bank of the Serio, 240 ft. above sea-level, in the centre of a rich agricultural district. The cathedral has a fine Lombard Gothic façade of the second half of the 14th century; the campanile belongs to the same period; the rest of the church has been restored in the baroque style. The clock tower opposite dates from the period of Venetian dominion in the 16th and 17th centuries. The castle, which was one of the strongest in Italy, was demolished in 1809. The church of S. Maria, ¾ m. E. of the town, was begun in 1490 by Giov. Batt. Battaggio; it is in the form of a Greek cross, with a central dome, and the exterior is a fine specimen of polychrome Lombard work (E. Gussalli inRassegna d’ arte, 1905, p. 17).

The date of the foundation of Crema is uncertain. In the 10th century it appears to have been the principal place of the territory known as Isola Fulcheria. In the 12th century it was allied with Milan and attacked by Cremona, but was taken and sacked by Barbarossa in 1160. It was rebuilt in 1185. It fell under the Visconti in 1338, and joined the Lombard republic in 1447; but was taken by the Venetians in 1449, and, except from 1509 to 1529, remained under their dominion until 1797.

CREMATION(Lat.cremare, to burn), the burning of human corpses. This method of disposal of the dead may be said to have been the general practice of the ancient world, with the important exceptions of Egypt, where bodies were embalmed, Judaea, where they were buried in sepulchres, and China, where they were buried in the earth. In Greece, for instance, so well ascertained was the law that only suicides, unteethed children, and persons struck by lightning were denied the right to be burned. At Rome, one of the XII. Tables said, “Hominem mortuum in urbe ne sepelito, neve urito”; and in fact, from the close of the republic to the end of the 4th Christian century, burning on the pyre or rogus was the general rule.1Whether in any of these cases cremation was adopted or rejected for sanitary or for superstitious reasons, it is difficult to say. Embalming would probably not succeed in climates less warm and dry than the Egyptian. The scarcity of fuel might also be a consideration. The Chinese are influenced by the doctrine of Feng-Shui, or incomprehensible wind water; they must have a properly placed grave in their own land, and with this view their corpses are sent home from long distances abroad. Even the Jews used cremation in the vale of Tophet when a plague came; and the modern Jews of Berlin and the Spanish and Portuguese Jews at Mile End cemetery were among the first to welcome the lately revived process. Probably also, some nations had religious objections to the pollution of the sacred principle of fire, and therefore practised exposure, suspension, throwing into the sea, cave-burial, desiccation or envelopment.2Some at least of these methods must obviously have been suggested simply by the readiest means at hand. Cremation is still practised over a great part of Asia and America, but not always in the same form. Thus, the ashes may be stored in urns, or buried in the earth, or thrown to the wind, or (as among the Digger Indians) smeared with gum on the heads of the mourners. In one case the three processes of embalming, burning and burying are gone through; and in another, if a member of the tribe die at a great distance from home, some of his money and clothes are nevertheless burned by the family. As food, weapons, &c., are sometimes buried with the body, so they are sometimes burned with the body, the whole ashes being collected.3The Siamese have a singular institution, according to which, before burning, the embalmed body lies in a temple for a period determined by the rank of the dead man,—the king for six months, and so downwards. If the poor relatives cannot afford fuel and the other necessary preparations, they bury the body, but exhume it for burning when an opportunity occurs.

There can be little doubt that the practice of cremation in modern Europe was at first stopped, and has since been prevented in great measure, by the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body; partly also by the notion that the Christian’s body was redeemed and purified.4Some clergymen, however, as the late Mr Haweis in hisAshes to Ashes, a Cremation Prelude(London, 1874), have been prominent in favour of cremation. The objection of the clergy was disposed of by the philanthropist Lord Shaftesbury when he asked, “What would in such a case become of the blessed martyrs?” The very general practice of burying bodies in the precincts of a church in order that the dead might take benefit from the prayers of persons resorting to the church, and the religious ceremony which precedes both European burials and Asiatic cremations, have given the question a religious aspect. It is, however, in the ultimate resort, really a sanitary one. The disgusting results of pit-burial made cemeteries necessary. But cemeteries are equally liable to overcrowding, and are often nearer to inhabited houses than the old churchyards. It is possible, no doubt, to make a cemetery safe approximately by selecting a soil which is dry, close and porous, by careful drainage, and by rigid enforcement of the rules prescribing a certain depth (8 to 10 ft.) and a certain superficies (4 yds.) for graves. But a great mass of sanitary objections may be brought against even recent cemeteries in various countries. A dense clay, the best soil for preventing the levitation of gas, is the worst for the process of decomposition. The danger is strikingly illustrated in the careful planting of trees and shrubs to absorb the carbonic acid. Vault-burial in metallic coffins, even when sawdust charcoal is used, is still more dangerous than ordinary burial. It must also be remembered that the cemetery system can only be temporary. The soil is gradually filled with bones; houses crowd round; the law itself permits the reopening of graves at the expiry of fourteen years. We shall not, indeed, as Browne says, “be knaved out of our graves to have our skulls made drinking bowls and our bones turned into pipes!” But on this ground of sentiment cremation would certainly prevent any interruption of that “sweet sleep and calm rest” which the old prayer that the earth might lie lightly has associated with the grave. And in the meantime we should escape the horror of putrefaction and of the “small cold worm that fretteth the enshrouded form.”

In Europe Christian burial was long associated entirely with the ordinary practice of committing the corpse to the grave. But in the middle of the 19th century many distinguished physicians and chemists, especially in Italy, began prominently to advocate cremation. In 1874, a congress called to consider the matter at Milan resolved to petition the Chamber of Deputies for a clause in the new sanitary code, permitting cremation under the supervision of the syndics of the commune. In Switzerland Dr Vegmann Ercolani was the champion of the cause (see hisCremation the most Rational Method of Disposing of the Dead, 4th ed., Zurich, 1874). So long ago as 1797 cremation was seriously discussed by the French Assembly under the Directory, and the events of the Franco-Prussian War again brought the subject under the notice of the medical press and the sanitary authorities. The military experiments at Sédan, Chalons and Metz, of burying large numbers of bodies with quicklime, or pitch and straw, were not successful, but very dangerous. The matter was considered by the municipal council of Paris in connexion with the new cemetery at Méry-sur-Oise; and the prefectof the Seine in 1874 sent a circular asking information to all the cremation societies in Europe. In Britain the subject had slumbered for two centuries, since in 1658 Sir Thomas Browne published his quaintHydriotaphia, or Urn-burial, which was mainly founded on theDe funere Romanorumof the learned Kirchmannus. In 1817 Dr J. Jamieson gave a sketch of the “Origin of Cremation” (Proc. Royal Soc. Edin., 1817), and for many years prior to 1874 Dr Lord, medical officer of health for Hampstead, continued to urge the practical necessity for the introduction of the system.

It was Sir Henry Thompson, however, who first brought the question prominently before the public. Thompson’s problem was—“Given a dead body, to resolve it into carbonic acid, water and ammonia, rapidly, safely and not unpleasantly.” To solve this problem, experiments were made by Dr Polli at the Milan gas works, fully described in Dr Pietra Santa’s book,La Crémation des morts en France et à l’étranger, and by Professor Brunetti, who exhibited an apparatus at the Vienna Exhibition of 1873, and who stated his results inLa Cremazione dei cadaveri(Padua, 1873). Polli obtained complete incineration or calcination of dogs by the use of coal-gas mixed with atmospheric air, applied to a cylindrical retort of refracting clay, so as to consume the gaseous products of combustion. The process was complete in two hours, and the ashes weighed about 5% of the weight before cremation. Brunetti used an oblong furnace of refracting brick with side-doors to regulate the draught, and above a cast-iron dome with movable shutters. The body was placed on a metallic plate suspended on iron wire. The gas generated escaped by the shutters, and in two hours carbonization was complete. The heat was then raised and concentrated, and at the end of four hours the operation was over; 180 ℔ of wood costing 2s. 4d. sterling was burned. In a reverberating furnace used by Sir Henry Thompson a body, weighing 144 ℔, was reduced in fifty minutes to about 4 ℔ of lime dust. The noxious gases, which were undoubtedly produced during the first five minutes of combustion, passed through a flue into a second furnace and were entirely consumed. In the ordinary Siemens regenerative furnace (which was adapted by Reclam in Germany for cremation, and also by Sir Henry Thompson) only the hot-blast was used, the body supplying hydrogen and carbon; or a stream of heated hydrocarbon mixed with heated air was sent from a gasometer supplied with coal, charcoal, peat or wood,—the brick or iron-cased chamber being thus heated to a high degree before cremation begins.

Steps were at once taken to form an English society to promote the practice of cremation. A declaration of its objects was drawn up and signed on the 13th January 1874 by the following persons—Shirley Brooks, William Eassie, Ernest Hart, the Rev. H. R. Haweis, G. H. Hawkins, John Cordy Jeaffreson, F. Lehmann, C. F. Lord, W. Shaen, A. Strahan, (Sir) Henry Thompson, Major Vaughan, Rev. C. Voysey and (Sir) T. Spencer Wells; and they frequently met to consider the necessary steps in order to attain their object. The laws and regulations having been thoroughly discussed, the membership of the society was constituted by an annual contribution for expenses, and a subscription to the following declaration:—

“We disapprove the present custom of burying the dead, and desire to substitute some mode which shall rapidly resolve the body into its component elements by a process which cannot offend the living, and shall render the remains absolutely innocuous. Until some better method is devised, we desire to adopt that usually known as cremation.”

Finally, on 29th April a meeting was held, a council was formed, and Sir H. Thompson was elected president and chairman. Mr Eassie (who in 1875 published a valuable work onCremation of the Dead) was at the same time appointed honorary secretary.5In 1875 the following were added:—Mrs Rose Mary Crawshay, Mr Higford Burr, Rev. J. Long, Mr W. Robinson and the Rev. Brooke Lambert. Subsequently followed Lord Bramwell, Sir Chas. Cameron, Dr Farquharson, Sir Douglas Galton, Lord Playfair, Mr Martin Ridley Smith, Mr James A. Budgett, Mr Edmund Yates, Mr J. S. Fletcher, Mr J. C. Swinburne-Hanham, the duke of Westminster (on Lord Bramwell’s death), and Sir Arthur Arnold. These may be considered the pioneers of the movement for reform.

On account of difficulties and prejudices6the council was unable to purchase a freehold until 1878, when an acre was obtained at Woking, not far distant from the cemetery. At this time the furnace employed by Professor Gorini of Lodi, Italy, appeared to be the best for working with on a small scale; and he was invited to visit England to superintend its erection. This was completed in 1879, and the body of a horse was cremated rapidly and completely without any smoke or effluvia from the chimney. No sooner was this successful step taken than the president received a communication from the Home Office, which resulted in a personal interview with the home secretary; the issue of which was that if the society desired to avoid direct hostile action, an assurance must be given that no cremation should be attempted without leave first obtained from the minister. This of course was given, no further building took place, and the society’s labours were confined to employing means to diffuse information on the subject. Sir Spencer Wells brought it before the annual meeting of the British Medical Association in 1880, when a petition to the home secretary for permission to adopt cremation was largely signed by the leading men in town and country, but without any immediate result. The next important development was an application to the council in 1882, by Captain Hanham in Dorsetshire, to undertake the cremation of two deceased relatives who had left express instructions to that effect. The home secretary was applied to, and refused. The bodies were preserved, and Captain Hanham erected a crematorium on his estate, and the cremation took place there. He himself, dying a year later, was cremated also; in both cases the result was attained under the supervision of Mr J. C. Swinburne-Hanham, who succeeded Mr Eassie in 1888 as honorary secretary to the society. The government took no notice. But in 1883 a cremation was performed in Wales by a man on the body of his child, and legal proceedings were taken against him. Mr Justice Stephen, in February 1884, delivered his well-known judgment at the Assizes there, declaring cremation to be a legal procedure, provided no nuisance were caused thereby to others. The council of the society at once declared themselves absolved from their promise to the Home Office, and publicly offered to perform cremation, laying down strict rules for careful inquiry into the cause of death in every case. They stated that they were fully aware that the chief practical objection to cremation was that it removed traces of poison or violence which might have caused death. Declining to trust the very imperfect statement generally made respecting the cause of death in the ordinary death certificate (unless a coroner’s inquest had been held), they adopted a system of very stringent inquiry, the result of which in each case was to be submitted to the president, to be investigated and approved by him before cremation could take place, with the right to decline or require an inquest if he thought proper; and this course has been followed ever since the first cremation.

It was on 26th March 1885 that the first cremation at Woking took place, the subject being a lady.7In 1888 it became necessary, nearly 100 bodies having been by this date cremated, to build a large hall for religious service, as well as waiting-rooms, in connexion with the crematorium there. The dukes of Bedford and Westminster headed the appeal for funds, each with £105. The former (the 9th duke of Bedford) especially took great interest in the progress of the society, and offered to furnish further donations to any extent necessary. During the next two years he generously defrayed costs to the amount of £3500, and built a smaller crematorium adjacent for himself and family. The latter building was first used on the 18th of January 1891, a few days after the duke’s own death. The number of cremationsslowly increased year by year, and the total at the end of 1900 was 1824. Many of these were persons of distinction—by rank, or by attainments in art, literature and science, or in public life.

The council next turned their attention to the need for a national system of death certification, to be enforced by law as an essential and much-needed reform in connexion with cremation. On the 6th of January 1893 the dukeDeath certification.of Westminster introduced a deputation to the secretary of state for the home department, Mr Asquith, and the president of the Cremation Society opened the case, showing that no less than 7% of the burials in England took place without any certificate, while in some districts it was far greater. In consequence of this the home secretary appointed a select committee of the House of Commons, which was presided over by Sir Walter Foster, of the Local Government Board, to “inquire into the sufficiency of the existing law as to the disposal of the dead ... and especially for detecting the causes of death due to poison, violence, and criminal neglect.” After a prolonged inquiry and careful consideration of the evidence, a full report and conclusions drawn therefrom were unanimously agreed to, and published as a blue-book in the autumn of 1893.8

Back to Index Next