multiplying
them), but these few comparisons will help the visitor to judge how
far this element colours his appreciation of the whole. As an
illustration of mediaeval methods of church building, it is interesting
to trace the growth of the structure with the help of the few
historical notices already given and the evidence of the building
itself. The subject is full of difficulties, and the writer does not
hope to solve them conclusively, but to put before the reader the main
points which have to be considered before forming a judgement.

[Illustration: TOWER ARCH.]

Both historic and structural evidence agree that there was an existing
smaller church when the tower was built in the last quarter of the
fourteenth century, that the choir and apse were either contemporary,
or begun a few years earlier, and that the nave was built between 1434
and 1450. The south porch and the west crypt (beneath the original
Lady Chapel) are almost contemporary (p. 34), belonging to the
beginning of the fourteenth century. Now the axis of the tower is
parallel to the axis and walls of the nave, while the centre line of
the choir is deflected towards the north about 7 deg.. Notwithstanding
this, however, owing to the tower not being central with the nave, the
axis of the choir, if prolonged, runs directly to the centre of the
tower arch, as may easily be seen by anyone who stands there and looks
along the ridge of the choir roof. (_See_ dotted line on Plan.)

[Illustration: BAY OF NAVE, NORTH SIDE.]

Next we see above the =tower arch= the mark of the old nave roof and
the old north wall of the nave. These show that the south wall stood
where the present one does, and the low-pitched fourteenth century
roof-line suggests incidentally this alternative: _either_ a
clearstory had been added to the nave before the building of the new
chancel or tower was in contemplation, _or_, when the huge tower was
built it was felt necessary to raise the nave roof so as to lessen the
disproportion. But, if we adopt the latter alternative we must accept
too the improbability that this expense should have been incurred when
the inadequacy of the old narrow nave of 151/2 feet compared with a
chancel of 33 feet must have been so obvious. This is one of the
difficult questions.

Then it is held by some that the axis of the old nave and chancel was
in line with that of the present choir; but the south porch, built
more than one hundred years before the ne