from 1249 to 1262. Both these writers therefore, beyond all question,
were alive when the present front was finished. "Here are two people
writing after the present west front was erected, and for persons before
whose eyes the present west front appeared every day, and speaking of
the tower and of the west front as well-known limits to a certain work.
Surely they not only meant, but _must have meant_, the front that _then_
was, in other words, the west front as it is _now_."

The conclusion of the controversy may perhaps not yet have been reached.
But all the difficulties appear to be explained by understanding that
Benedict's work extended to the west end of the present nave, and that
he carried the whole building further west than was originally intended,
and managed to do this without destroying the lower part of the towers
which had actually been raised.

When, therefore, the Norman nave, as originally designed, was
approaching completion, the designers determined upon an extension of
the nave, and a much grander western finish to the church than had
before been contemplated. This idea included a dignified western
transept, the dimensions of which, from north to south, should exceed
the entire width of the nave and aisles. This would of necessity involve
the lengthening of the nave, because the monastic buildings came close
to the south aisle of the nave, at the point where the original
termination of the church was to have been, as may be seen by the old
western wall of the cloister, which is still standing.

The two next abbots were Andrew (1193-1200), and Acharius (1200-1210).
To one or both of these may be assigned the western transept. By their
time the Norman style was giving place to the lighter and more elegant
architecture of the Early English period, the round arch was beginning