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 15-1/2 feet compared with a
chancel of 33 feet must have been so obvious. This is one of the
difficult questions.

[Illustration: BAY OF NAVE, NORTH SIDE.]

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 new nave, is at right angles
with it which would hardly have been the case had the two naves not
been on the same lines.

Needless to say the old east end could scarcely have extended beyond
the present nave, so that the new chancel was probably built without
disturbing the old church. The position of the older Lady Chapel
supports this view, while its bearing towards the north, as already
pointed out, indicates that the deflection of the new chancel is
simply copied from the older one.

The position of the south porch proves also that the south aisle was
as wide as the present one, while the fact that it was wider than the
nave shows that it was almost certainly not designed at the same time.