Apeil 21. 1855.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



305 



there adduces." The passage hangs upon the word 

 monks. Dr. Lingard says : 



" There is a tradition . . . that the monks, before their 

 ejection, had substituted by way of precaution the body 

 of some other person for that of St. Cuthbert," &c. — Ibid. 



Then he argues : 



" This tradition cannot be correct, as far as it concerns 

 the monks ; for they were ejected in 1540, and the vault 

 "was not built before 1542. If then any removal took 

 ■place, it must have been while the Catholic secular 

 canons were in possession from that time till the reign of 

 i;iizabeth." — Ibid. 



Now this is merely a dispute of words : for these 

 Catholic secular canons were, many of them, the 

 same men who had been monks up to 1540 ; and 

 among them was the keeper of St. Cuthbert's 

 shrine, and the prior as dean. However, Dr. 

 Lingard does incline to the belief that the remains 

 found in 1827 were those of St. Cuthbert; and 

 that the suspicious opening of the vault before 

 1827 was the work of "the Catholic prebendaries, 

 who, aware of their approaching ejection in the 

 reign of Queen Elizabeth, introduced into the tomb, 

 as a place of security, the other relics of the 

 church and the most valuable articles belonging 

 to the feretory." — Ihid. My conviction is, that, 

 "aware of their approaching ejection," they opened 

 the vault, not to introduce anything, but to ex- 

 tract from the tomb that upon which they set the 

 utmost value. When we remember that these 

 very men had but in 1537 seen this very shrine 

 despoiled and destroyed, and the coffin with the 

 saint's remains removed from the feretory into the 

 vestry, we cannot suppose them to have removed 

 into the new vault, built in 1542, " as a place of 

 isecurity," the relics and valuables of the church. 



Dr. Lingard told a friend of mine, from whom 

 I have it, that if he had made slight of the tradi- 

 tion in his Hemarhs, it was mainly with the view 

 -of drawing out the Benedictines, the inheritors of 

 the secret, not to divulge but to vindicate their 

 tradition. Yet the secret is not confined to the 

 Benedictines. How many of that body know it, 

 I cannot say ; but I know six seculars to whom it 

 has heen confided. The late Bishop Baines, I am 

 given to understand, offered to search the spot 

 pointed out by the tradition, if he might have per- 

 mission to remove the body if found. The cathe- 

 dral authorities are all pledged to the belief in the 

 bones found in 1827 being those of St. Cuthbert; 

 but whenever they are prepared to stand to the 

 terms of the above proposal, the search in the 

 «pot traditionally pointed out will be made. 



The credibility of this tradition seems to me to be 

 fully established, both by a priori and a posteriori 

 arguments, in the History of St. Cuthbert. The 

 arguments there brought forward are unanswered 

 and unanswerable. 



An argument may also be drawn in its favour 

 from analogy. Other traditions have existed in 



reference to the hiding-places of saints' bodies, 

 and have proved true. The body of St. Francis 

 of Assisi was concealed In a secret vault in 1476, 

 by order of Sixtus IV. The secret was known 

 to only one or two friars, who at their death trans- 

 mitted It to others. Many tried to find it, but 

 were obliged to abandon the attempt. Pius V., 

 wishing to see the body, had workmen employed 

 day and night for some time, but In vain. Others 

 called the tradition in question. But on making 

 the search a few years ago In the spot tradi- 

 tionally indicated, the body was found. P. A, F. 



BULL S BLOOD AS POISON. 



(Vol. xi., pp. 12. 67. 148.) 



To the cases already cited may be added that 

 of Tanyoxartes, the brother of Cambyses (Ktesias, 

 in Persic, apud Photium). 



The question, as to whether bull's blood possesses 

 such qualities as, taken under certain conditions 

 and in sufficient quantities, would produce death, 

 arises from the assertion that certain Individuals 

 have died from Its imbibition : if, therefore, it can 

 be shown that the alleged cases rest upon very 

 slender authority, while modern experience shows 

 that such a draught is harmless, little will remain 

 but to account in a plausible manner — as by the 

 too literal interpretation of a figurative expression 

 — for the existence of a popular belief. 



If, on the other hand, it can be shown that deaths, 

 penal or suicidal, ever have been so caused, there 

 can be no doubt that the modus operandi, as ex- 

 plained by Mr. Leachman, Is correct, and the 

 supposition of Niebuhr at once extravagant and 

 unnecessary. 



In an inquiry as to the actuality of the alleged 

 cases, it appears to me that we may safely dismiss 

 those of Aison and Midas as belonging to a fabu- 

 lous rather than an historical period, and allow 

 the question to depend upon those of Themistocles 

 and Hannibal. 



With regard to the former, the testimony of 

 Valerius Maximus is the most unqualified and 

 circumstantial : 



" Tliemistocles autem, quern virtus sua victorem, in- 

 juria patrisB imperatorem Persarum fecerat, nt se ab ea 

 oppugnanda abstineret, institute sacrificio, exceptum pa- 

 tera tauri sanguinem hausit, et ante ipsam aram, quasi 

 quffidam Pietatis clara victima concidit." — Lib. v. cap. vi. 

 Ext. 3. 



Thucydides (i. 138.) mentions the tradition, 

 while asserting that he died from natural disease : 



" NooTjcra? Se Tekevra toi/ Piov, Keyov<Ti Se rives Kcu eKovaiov 

 ^apftaKW aTToSaveii' avTOf, aSvpaTOv vo/xtVaVTa elvat. eTrtreAeVot 

 ^aaiKel a vneaxeTO," 



Cornelius Nepos is aware of the diversity of 

 opinion, but, following Thucydides, mentioDs the 



