Such was Dr. Wren's opinion of the west front. It is fortunate that
his advice was not followed, for have we not the same west front still
in existence? However, Wren spoke of "the remaining part of the tower
now standing," and King's print, publishing 1656, shows the portion to
which he referred. Fuller [22] remarked in 1662 that the church "now is
torn, having lately a great part thereof fallen to the ground." He no
doubt refers to the same ruin, for it is not to be conjectured that
any other part fell then.

[22] "Worthies," II, 385

Sir Christopher Wren says the towers never were alike in design, nor
were they "both built together."

The edition of Dugdale's "Monasticon," published in 1673, gives a view
of the north façade of the church. Ede, writing in 1684, said that
"above fifty years" before one-third part of the north-west tower had
fallen from top to bottom; yet this illustration shows that same tower
complete. This affords an opportunity of comparing portions of the two
towers. The upper part of each is shown to finish on top with a
battlement parapet. It is evidence in itself that during the fifteenth
century certain alterations had been effected in them both at this
part. But this print must have been made from an original which had
been executed quite twenty years earlier--for King's drawing, issued
in 1656, shows the north-west tower already partly destroyed; so it is
necessary to conclude that the drawing for the "Monasticon" was done
before 1656, but after 1610, when Speed's map, or bird's-eye view, of
the city was brought out.