whole nave from the tower of the choir to the front. The wording,
however, of the two is so similar as to cause some doubt as to their
being independent authorities. Granting that some small portion of the
nave to the east, as before described, must have been built as a support
to Waterville's tower, the question remains, what is the front to which
this record alludes? There is of course no doubt that the words speak of
the nave only, exclusive of the front. But was this the present west
front, as now remaining, or was there previously a Norman front to the
church? There is much to be said on both sides. Mr Paley believes the
latter; Mr Poole, the former. And possibly the true solution may be
found in a combination of both theories, though at first sight that
seems impossible. That a west front in Norman times was designed, and in
part built, Mr Paley has shewn most conclusively. He indeed thinks it
was finished, but that is open to considerable doubt. The evidence on
which he proves that two western towers were at least designed is quite
conclusive; and the whole passage in which he discusses the matter may
be quoted.[9] "Proceeding towards the west end of the nave, we observe a
very singular feature. The third pillar from the west end on each side
is considerably larger and wider than the others; and it also projects
further into the aisles. The arch also, springing from it westward, is
of a much greater span. The opposite vaulting shafts, in the aisle
walls, are brought forward, beyond the line of the rest, to meet the
pillars in question; so that the arch across the aisles is, in this
part, very much contracted, and, instead of being a mere groin rib, like
the rest, is a strong moulded arch of considerable depth in the soffit.
What appears at first sight, still more strange, the wall of the aisles
opposite to the wider nave-arch just mentioned, is brought forward at
least a foot internally, but again retires to the old level at the last
bay; so that in this particular part the whole thickness of the
aisle-wall is considerably greater. Not less remarkable is the