Architectural Parallels."

Evidently, if the upper part of the tower did not fall, it is
apparently certain that it was reconstructed, in order to carry the
additional weight of the larger tower. But in examining the
documentary evidence offered us, we find some further help. The
teaching of archaeology shows that the portion of this tower above the
main supporting arches and up to the bottom of the parapet was
executed between 1225 and 1325--that is, it was finished not very long
after the new part of the south-west tower was completed.

The cathedral statutes show that between the years 1244-1247 Bishop
Ralph Neville was much concerned about a "stone tower" which he wished
to see completed. They tell us, too, that the same bishop had himself
expended one hundred and thirty marks upon the fabric, [7] and that his
executors, besides releasing a debt of L60 due to him and spent on the
bell-tower, gave L140 to the fabric of the church. Ralph died in 1244,
so it is concluded that the work in which he was so interested was
none other than the central or bell-tower of the cathedral, and that
the earlier tower, with its supporting arches, must have fallen, else
it is not likely that the work would have been rebuilt from below the
spring of these arches before the new superstructure could be added;
for we are obliged to take the customs of mediaeval builders into
consideration in any attempt to sift the evidence concerning their
work--and they were before all things practical. The claims of
structure, the motives of common-sense, rather than abstract and
aesthetic ideals of beauty, were the prime causes at work in the
evolution of their great art. Here they found themselves faced by a
practical need--the rebuilding of a fallen tower. Its reconstruction
was necessary to the completeness and stability of the building; so
they put it up, applying new and increasing knowledge and skill in the
execution of the work. They did their best, and the result was
something not only strong and structural, but beautiful. But, as time
has shown, it would have been better had they been less respectful of
the valueless legacy bequeathed to them in the piers, though in
defence of their sagacity it must be admitted that what they deemed
sufficient for the purpose then in view was able to carry their own
tower for five hundred years in safety, and not only this, but, in
addition, a spire, the erection of which they may not have thought of
when t