_St. Cuthbert._--The body of St. Cuthbert, as is well known, had many
wanderings before it found a magnificent resting-place at Durham. Now, in
an anonymous _History of the Cathedral Church of Durham_, without date, we
have a very particular account of the defacement of the shrine of St. {326}
Cuthbert, in the reign of Henry VIII. The body was found "lying whole,
uncorrupt, with his face bare, and his beard as of a fortnight's growth,
with all the vestments about him as he accustomed to say mass withal." The
vestments are described as being "fresh, safe, and not consumed." The
visitors "commanded him to be carried into the Revestry, till the king's
pleasure concerning him was further known; and upon the receipt thereof the
prior and monks buried him in the ground under the place where his shrine
was exalted." Now, there is a tradition of the Benedictines (of whose
monastery the cathedral was part) that on the accession of Elizabeth the
monks, who were apprehensive of further violence, removed the body in the
night-time from the place where it had been buried to some other part of
the building. This spot is known only to three persons, brothers of the
order; and it is said that there are three persons who have this knowledge
now, as communicated from previous generations.
But a discovery was made in 1827 of the remains of a body in the centre of
the spot where the shrine stood, with various relics of a very early period
and it was asserted to be the body of St. Cuthbert. This, however, has not
been universally assented to, and Mr. Akerman, in his _Archæological
Index_, has--
"The object commonly called St. Cuthbert's Cross" (though the
designation has been questioned), "found with human remains and other
relics of the Anglo-Saxon period, in the Cathedral of Durham in
1827."--p. 144.
There does seem considerable discrepancy in the statements of the remains
found in 1827 and the body deposited 1541.
I will conclude with asking, Is there any evidence to confirm the tradition
of the Benedictines?