in
view--would raise many questions. Experience would already have taught
the builders that the early central towers of many other churches were
incapable of carrying their own weight. This being so, much less
would it do to suppose that it could bear the addition of new weight
upon the old piers; for though to all appearance sound, the cores were
of rough rubble work, not solidly bedded and not properly bonded with
the ashlar casing. So the question arises, did they remove the whole
or part of the old central tower and piers, or were they saved this
trouble by the structure having shared the fate of many others like
itself, which fell, and so made way for new work? Another tower had
fallen besides the one to which attention has already been drawn; and
as there appears to be nothing to show that this other was the
north-west tower, we must see what evidence there is concerning the
central tower. That it was added to we already know. But documentary
as well as structural evidence comes to our aid. The first is supplied
by the records of Bishop Neville's episcopate; the next by the
researches of modern archaeology. Professor Willis has shown in his
remarks upon the structure of the piers at the time of the collapse of
the mediaeval tower and spire in 1861, that these had not been rebuilt
at a date later than the twelfth century. But Mr. Sharpe [6], writing
to Professor Willis seven years before the occurrence, indicates his
discovery--from a close examination of the structure then
existing--that before the upper part of the central tower was rebuilt
in the thirteenth century the earlier arches at the crossing which
were to support it had been taken down, and probably a large part of
the piers carrying them. And that, though the twelfth-century
voussoirs were re-used others of a fine grained stone were inserted
among them to strengthen the arches, or as a substitute for some of
the rougher sandstones that could not be used again. By this means,
then, the original form and detail of the twelfth-century arches was
preserved, so that the drawings representing the measured studies of
the building, which were Sir Gilbert Scott's principal authority upon
which to base his restoration of this portion of the tower, were made
from work which had already been once rebuilt. But why was this part
of the church rebuilt, and by whom? Two alternative suggestions for
the reason have been offered.

[5] Walcott, p. 15.
[6] Author of "