of two bays was built at the east end of the north aisle, between
it and the north chapel. Within the next few years, the aisles at
Adderbury were also widened, and arcades similar to that at Bloxham,
though coarser in detail, were built at the east end of either aisle.
The projection of the transeptal chapels from the side walls was now
very slight; and, in the fifteenth century, the projection of the south
chapel at Bloxham was absorbed by the building of the Milcombe chapel,
between which and the south aisle an arcade of two bays was made. There
is more intrinsic interest in this gradual development of plan than in
the Devonshire plans we have noticed, which are all due to fifteenth
century rebuildings; and the mutual influence exercised throughout the
middle ages by two neighbouring churches like Bloxham and Adderbury
gives us an insight into the progress of local art which the energy of
fifteenth century masons in certain districts has somewhat obscured.
From the arrangement of the south transept at Adderbury, there appear to
have been two altars in each of the chapels.

Sec. 61. Transeptal chapels occasionally appear in unusual positions. For
example, at Branscombe in south Devon, there is a tower between nave and
chancel. There are, however, no transepts; but transeptal chapels are
built out from the walls of the aisleless nave, west of the tower. These
chapels appear to be enlargements of earlier transeptal chapels; while
the tower seems to have been built over the chancel of the earlier
church. Heckington church in south Lincolnshire was rebuilt in the
fourteenth century. The nave has aisles with transeptal chapels, very
regular and symmetrical in plan, but is continued beyond the opening of
the transeptal projections by an aisleless bay, east of which comes the
chancel arch. At Bottesford in north Lincolnshire, where much rebuilding
was done in the thirteenth century, the transeptal chapels open from the
bay east of the chancel arch. In the case of Heckington, the earlier
church was probably cruciform: when the rebuilding came to pass, the
ground plan of the western portion of the church was kept, while the
chancel was built on an extended plan, and the site of the western part
of the old chancel thrown into the nave. The case of Bottesford is
probably accounted for in the opposite way: the site was not enlarged
eastwards, but the chancel was lengthened by the absorption of the
eastern part of the old nave.