micircular sweep. An intelligible reason sometimes assigned for the
difference is that the area enclosed is not exactly square, and that it
became necessary for the builders to carry the transept-arches to a
point, to accommodate them to the oblong plan, and bring the upper
mouldings into line with those of the rounded arches between the choir
and nave. On this supposition the result has been called "an incidental
use of the pointed arch," examples of which occur elsewhere (_e.g._, at
Christ Church, Oxford, and other churches of the transitional period)
before it became a distinguishing feature of the later style. It is
tolerably certain, however, that the tower was rebuilt in the fifteenth
century, and that the north and south arches were then altered from
their first design. And their appearance is strongly in favour of a
reconstruction; for it will be noticed that, instead of the usual
elegant inclination in a continuous curve from the spring to the apex,
they rise perpendicularly for some distance above the piers on either
side, and then take rather an abrupt turn inwards, suggesting the
imposition of a pointed heading on an original stilted form. Further
signs of alteration appear on the northern side, where the capitals have
been recut in the Perpendicular fashion; but the Norman pilasters and
mouldings on the south remain untouched. On both sides the double
serrated line of moulding claims attention, as an example of the
"saw-tooth" ornament found in early work. A difference will be observed
in the corbels supporting the mouldings of the eastern and western
arches. The former are much more boldly cut, with all the appearance of
original work, while those on the west would seem to have been modified
by some architect of the Perpendicular age. In the decoration of the
inner tower walls there is a lozenge-shaped panel in each of the
spandrels, sculptured into a floral ornament something like the Greek
honeysuckle, a shallow arcading in the angles, and a cornice of zigzag
moulding extending round the walls, immediately below the modern ceiling
(1886) of panelled oak.

The piers at the angles of the tower are not very much more massive
than the adjacent walls, and do not strike one as capable of sustaining
a superstructure of any great weight. It may therefore be inferred that
the tower was a low one, as is in fact borne out by the representation
on the Priory seal, where the circular turrets at each end of the church