n the Book of
Swapham above mentioned tells us that the Precentor, Humphrey Austin,
had hidden it in 1642 in anticipation of coming troubles. But Cromwell's
soldiers found it, and would probably have destroyed it; the Precentor,
however, under pretence of enquiring after an old Latin bible, found out
where it was, and redeemed it for the sum of ten shillings.

=Monuments and Inscriptions=.--We proceed to speak of these, treated as
a single subject, instead of describing them at the various parts of the
building where they are to be found.

At first sight it is thought that this cathedral is singularly deficient
in monuments of interest. To a certain extent this is the case. There
are no memorial chantries, such as add to the beauty of many of our
noblest churches; no effigies of warriors or statesmen; no series of
ancient tablets or inscriptions that illustrate the history of the
neighbourhood; not a single brass. With few exceptions all the monuments
and inscriptions that remain commemorate abbots or other members of the
monastery, or, after the Reformation, bishops, and members of the
cathedral foundation and their families. While of famous persons known
to have been buried within the walls, such as Katherine of Arragon, Mary
Queen of Scots, the Archbishops Elfricus and Kinsius of York, Sir
Geoffrey de la Mare, Sir Robert de Thorpe, and others, no memorials
worthy of their fame and importance are in existence. The wanton
destruction during the civil war in great part explains this; but it is
sad to remember that numbers of mediaeval inscriptions in the floor were
hidden or destroyed during some well-meaning but ill-judged alterations
in the eighteenth century.

First in interest and importance is that known as the Monks' Stone, now
preserved in the new building. It is generally thought that this was
constructed in commemoration of the massacre of Abbot Hedda and his
monks in 870, by the Danes. It was not till nearly a century later that
any attempt was made to rebuild the monastery. But Mr Bloxam read a
paper at Peterborough in 1861 in which he disputed the authenticity of
this monument, which had been previously regarded as one of the most
ancient monumental stones extant. He pronounced it to be Norman, and not
Saxon work, and some centuries later in date than the massacre of the
monks. He considered the figures did not represent the slain monks and
their abbot, but Christ and eleven disciples. It has been further