PROCEEDINGS OF THE COTTESWOLD CLUB 45 



If wo examine the corresponding part of this compart- 

 ment westward, very distinct traces may be observed ot 

 the Hnes where return walls have evidently been removed. 

 They have been entirely cut away and the stonework has 

 heen left flush with the adjoining wall. Still the hnes are 

 unmistakable, and indicate the former existence here of an 

 archway similar in all probability to that which existed 

 eistwird It is evident the Nave could never have ter- 

 minated here, and what other purpose could these return 



walls have served? ■ , u- • 



Another point worthy of note in connection with this is 

 the ceiling beneath the Tower, and the awkward way the 

 Nave roof drops below it. 



These facts seem to point to the existence, or at all 

 events the intention, of a Tower here, but it is of course 

 quite impossible to say whether it was ever completed. 



\ Tower in this position in a Norman Church was a 

 very common arrangement. We may cite Gloucester 

 Cathedral and Tewkesbury Abbey as examples in the 

 immediate neighbourhood, and many others might be 

 mentioned. What the Tower may have been, supposing 

 it ever existed, I cannot say, but judging by analogy, 

 probably such a Tower would have been somewhat low 

 and square in appearance, and rising about one square 

 above the roof of the Church : the treatment may have 

 been and probably was in a Church of this size, plain and 

 simple; or on the contrary, it may have been enriched with 

 arcading like that of Tewkesbury, or of Rurford or Iffley 

 in Oxfordshire. 



3rd— The Norman Chancel. Here, if I interpret the 

 plan correctly, was an arrangement much more common 

 in France than in this country with Churches of this size, 

 viz. : a polygonal apsidal termination ; and the reasons for 

 arriving at this conclusion are these : — 



On the plan it will be noticed that there is what is 

 technically known as a respond of Norman work on either 



