he Neglect of the Roof."[43]
Double engaged shafts reached to the clerestory, and supported the
springers. The actual arcading sprang from these shorter engaged
shafts, which had cushioned capitals; and the arcading of the
triforium was similar. The mouldings of the arches of arcading and
triforium look like the lozenge. The vaulting, too heavy for its
supports, was quadripartite, with cross springers intervening, and the
longitudinal rib unbroken. The =Transepts= were each of four bays, and
in their details similar to the nave. Their north aisles were shut off
by blank walls which displayed here and there the architecture of the
rest; and each aisle of four bays was further divided into two equal
parts of two bays each, making four compartments altogether. In one or
other of these four the Consistory Court, according to Wren, was held.
To the arcading of nave and transepts, Wren says that in later years
four new and stronger piers were added in the common centre under the
tower for the purpose of strengthening it. As these are not shown in
Dugdale's plates, we can only conjecture their date to have been after
the fire of 1445. By the plan they were far more massive than the
others, and we can well understand Wren's complaint that they broke in
upon the perspective.

[Illustration: THE NAVE OF OLD ST. PAUL'S.
_After Hollar._]

The dates of the nave and transepts have already been suggested. After
the fire of 1087, Bishop Maurice and his successor built everything
afresh on a larger scale. The fire of 1136 did great damage, and
restoration on a considerable scale was effected. Mr. E.A. Freeman, by
a happy coincidence, touches on restorations at Wells of this time,
and contrasts our two dates.[44] After the fire of 1136 the
restoration would be in a style "somewhat less massive, somewhat more
highly enriched." I have already pointed out Freeman's statement that
the custom towards the middle of the eleventh century was to throw a
coating of the more refined Romanesque of the day over earlier Norman
work, and this agrees with the statements both of Wren and Pepys.

We may, then, assume that while the former ground-plan and general
outline remained the same, after 1136 the pillars were encased and
more elaborate mouldings added. By another statement of the same
authority[45] it would seem that "the vaulting shafts run up from the
ground" belong to the second restoration, when the vaulting itself was
completed, and