This very interesting and useful document is not, as Dr. Oliver represents (p. 383), an agreement or contract to furnish marble, but a reckoning concerning marble already contracted for, and in part furnished: the furnishing, and even the putting of it in its place, may have begun some time before. We must place that work earlier, too, than 1329: since in that year œ120 17s. 5d. out of the œ132 17s. 5d. spoken of in the "reckoning " was paid, and the remaining œ12 in the following year. This was plainly for marble actually furnished. We are thrown back, then, to an unlimited period, apparently to Stapledon's latter years, for the preparation of the marble. And the purchase of scaffolding in 1325-6 may indicate the terminus a quo of the actual works in the Nave. This would allow about nine years for the preparation and putting up of the pillars, viz., from 1325 - 1334: by September in which year it is plain, from the document, that they were completed. This is perhaps, judging by our conclusions as to the time occupied in the Choir works (see above) a fairly adequate time for the purpose. There would still remain gigantic works to be executed in the way of raising the clerestory walls to a greater height, putting on the vaulting and weather-roof of Nave and aisles, inserting the windows, remodelling the aisle walls, raising the flying buttresses, and in part erecting them from the ground: besides the building of the cloisters, about which alone we are supplied with dates by the Rolls. Otherwise, how much time the work occupied after 1334, whether four years or forty; whether Grandisson really finished it, or left some portion of it for his successor to do, we really have no absolute or certain information. I shall return to this subject presently. But meanwhile I would remark that the document just translated casts a curious light backward upon the architectural history of the Cathedral. It will be observed that the number of "great columns" which Canon had covenanted to supply for the Nave, was eleven and a half; the number of clustered columns for the triforium sixty. Why eleven and a half, and why sixty? For the number of columns in the Nave is, of course, fourteen and two half columns - fifteen in all; and in the seven bays of the triforium 7 X 10, or seventy. This is at first sight puzzling enough. And I cannot help thinking (to mention this by the way) that it is to a misapprehension founded on this paradox or puzzle, that we owe the strange affirmation of our writers from Leland downwards, that Grandisson "enlargid the west part of the Chirche, making vii archis wher afore the plot was made out of v." (Leland, c. 1538, Itin. iii. 65.) They naturally thought that there were then but five bays, requiring only ten pillars and two responds, or half pillars (eleven in all) to be provided. And they proceeded to attribute the extension of the Nave two bays further to the same hand, as an after-thought. Imperfectly informed as they were, the uniformity of the work, and the lengthened duration of Grandisson's episcopate, naturally led to this conclusion. How else such an idea can have originated, I cannot imagine. It is certain, as we have seen, that Grandisson did not lengthen the Nave; since his first work was about the west front, containing then, as now, the Ghapel of St. Radegunde.

And the true account of the order having been limited to eleven columns and a half, and sixty triforium pillars, has been already placed before the reader. Quivil, it has been represented, had completed the transformation of the first or westernmost bay of the Nave nearly fifty years before (c. 1284, see above); and Stapeldon had furnished all its four windows with stained glass in 1318. There thus remained only ten entire columns, and two halves or responds - eleven in all - to be supplied: with the addition (as the work still remaining shews), of two quarter columns, or thereabouts {i.e. one half column) for the aisles (N.E. and S.E. angles); and sixty triforium shafts. It is probable that the haggling about the odd "quarter of a column," between the Chapter and William Canon, referred to this small "extra;" for which he thought more than the price of a "half column " ought to be allowed him. This they had refused at first, but consented to on the conditions stated; "so making all smooth between the parties."

But what proof is there, it may be asked, that Quivil completed this bay so many years before? Why may not Stapledon, with his "scaffolding poles," have made this beginning in the Nave? Now it is of no sort of consequence to my theory (so to call it) as a whole, whether Quivil or Stapledon did this particular work. But so it is, that, on examination, the most cogent and convincing proof reveals itself, that it was Quivil's doing. First, the tracery of the two clerestory windows of this bay is identical in design, as far as it goes, with that of Quivil's acknowledged magnificent windows in the two transepts, having the straight spoked wheel and other characteristics, wherein they differ widely from the adjacent and all the other Nave windows. But, secondly, the mouldings of the capitals of these two first pillars correspond exactly with those in Quivil's great transeptal arches, while they differ from those of the Choir and Nave, being of earlier and less developed Decorated character. The bases of these pillars are still more strikingly different from those of the rest of the Nave; being much lower and with the members differently proportioned. And the whole bay "follows suit:" from the flatter style of the bosses, especially in the aisles, to the flying buttresses. These, as Mr. Luscombe, the Cathedral surveyor, was the first to point out, are very peculiar, having originally had a double spring or arc-boutant (though the lower one is now filled up), after the French manner.