circumstance, that the half-pillars on each side of this wider arch
resume the complex[10] form already described at the eastern end of the
nave, though they do not accurately agree either in plan or details....
Now it seems highly probable that it was at this very spot that it
[_i.e._, a Norman west front] stood, with two flanking Norman towers at
the end of the aisles. The wider nave-arch, with its massive and complex
pillars, was the entrance into the tower from each side of the nave. The
thicker aisle-wall opposite to it was, in fact, _the tower wall_. The
larger and heavier group of vaulting-shafts against the aisle-wall, and
the strong arch spanning the aisle across this point in place of the
groin-rib, were all parts of the tower.... The transformation of the
base of these two immense towers into a compartment of the aisle, so
similar to all the rest that its real nature has never been hitherto
suspected, is highly ingenious. It is only when once detected that the
anomalies above mentioned are at all intelligible."

These arguments prove to demonstration that the intention was to make
the Norman church end at the spot where now stand the third pillars of
the nave; and that the two western towers had begun to be built. As an
after thought another bay was added to the nave, with western transept,
and last of all the grand west front was another after thought. But they
do not establish the fact that the towers were ever finished, or the
Norman west front actually erected. The considerations adduced are
perfectly consistent with the theory that the additional length of the
nave was decided upon while the towers were still unfinished, and the
lower part of the towers transformed as Mr Paley has described. Thus we
combine the rival theories. For Mr Poole[11] maintains that the point,
up to which Benedict's work was carried, must mean the front we now see.
One argument he advances appears unanswerable.[12] Of the two
chroniclers, Swapham takes his history down to 1246; Abbot John ruled