MIDLAND UNION OF NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETIES. 245 
on the east and west sides of the crux. There would be no 
interference with the general character of the lantern. It 
would still tell its tale of the 14th century reconstruction,* 
and there is no reason why there should not be added to this 
the rale of 19tli century rebuilding. 
The addition of this stage of arcading would of course 
raise the tower to the extent of the height of the arcading. 
On this, the 14th century tower might still be re-erected. 
But can nothing more be done ? Such a tower would still be 
low and out of proportion to the great length of the church. 
Surely something more might be done and a spire would be 
a grand feature. There are spires on two of the western 
towers ; there was, as late as a century ago, a third spire. To 
erect a lofty and noble spire on the great central tower would 
be a triumph of architectural skill and would give a dignity 
and an elevation to the church which nothing else could 
impart. 
. I am sorry that I cannot agree with Canon Owen Davys 
in thinking that the 14th century builders purposely kept the 
central tower low, whilst they added spires to the western 
towers in order to concentrate the whole external effect of the 
church in the west front. It is quite clear, on the contrary, 
and abundant evidence to the contrary has turned up in the 
course of taking down the tower, that the architects of 
that day endeavoured to rebuild the Norman lantern, but were 
obliged to desist owing to the unsound condition of the piers. 
They made two attempts at rebuilding, the one closely 
following the other. Mr. Davys writes : “The Norman idea 
was that of a lofty central tower with two smaller western 
towers, as at Southwell, but the Early English builders had 
since given such unlooked for dignity to the west front that 
now the Continental idea of western splendour and central 
lowliness might well be adopted. So two leading thoughts 
directed the new design ; the first to build a tower so light 
as to avert future danger; the second to build a tower so low 
as not to divert the eye from the west front. In both these 
efforts as the towers left the hands of the builders they were 
eminently successful .”—[Guide to Peterborough Cathedral , fifth 
edition, p. GB.) 
I quite agree with Mr. Davys as to the first of these 
reasons for a low tower. I can see no ground whatever for 
attributing the second to the Early English builders. Certainly 
I know of no view which can be obtained of the west front 
* I must say frankly, however, that I see no reason why these two 
pointed arches should be retained if the Norman arcading is restored. 
