ence is made on page 100, and it is evident that
even the fulsome praise of an epitaph would hardly go out of its way
to describe him as "sprung from dukes and noble princes." Planche,
despite this objection, does not deem it convincing, as poor priests
were often of noble lineage. If, however, we assume it represents
Bishop Jocelin, one of the house of Bohun, a great Norman family, and
compare the effigy with the seal of that bishop, the later theory that
deprives Bishop Roger of this much discussed monument will probably be
chosen as the most acceptable. In a record at least three centuries
old his burial-place is said to be near the chapel of St. Stephen; and
in a plan of the Cathedral, dated 1773, and in Price's account, 1774,
a plain slab with a cross upon it, in a shallow recess of the wall
east of the north aisle, is assigned to Bishop Roger.

But this and the other disputed monuments are undoubtedly genuine
memorials of the earliest bishops, and not merely interesting for that
reason, but as (with the exception of two slabs dated 1086 and 1172 in
Westminster Abbey) the earliest examples of their class in England.
Although the question of their identity of the individuals they
commemorate were best left to those few who are peculiarly concerned
with the history of the period that includes them.

Near these effigies is a slab with faint traces of an incised figure,
which may possibly have represented an abbot or prior. It can hardly
be intended for a bishop, as no mitre can be traced, and the staff is
held in the right hand. The monument (5) on the plinth under the next
arch is also beyond identification.

Next in order comes the altar tomb (6) which now contains the remains
of Bishop Beauchamp, who died in 1481. When this was removed from the
aisle at the north end of the great transept it was empty, and showed
no trace of its original dedication. During the wanton demolition of
the Beauchamp chantry, where, "in marble tumbes," with his father and
mother on either hand, the remains of Bishop Beauchamp had been
unmolested for over three hundred years, his own tomb was "mislaid"
and never recovered. It is pleasant to note that even the apologists
for Wyatt felt this incident was beyond their sympathy. Dodsworth
naively remarks, "After this the greatest possible care was taken that
nothing of the kind should again occur," and so far as we know, not
even a prior was subsequently lost. Of this bishop much is said
e