The total internal length is 265 feet, exclusive of the sacristy; Boston, the only larger one, being 284 feet, while very few exceed 200 feet, and most are far smaller.  The greatest internal width is 120 feet; Manchester, a double-aisled collegiate church, is about the same, and York Minster is 106 feet.  Finally, the area is about 22,800 square feet, probably greater than that of any other English parish church, indeed, St. Nicholas, Yarmouth, is the only one which pretends to rivalry in this respect.  Size is, of course, only one element in the impressiveness of a building, and may even be neutralized by the treatment (as, for instance, in the Duomo of Florence and St. Peter’s, Rome, by increasing the size of its parts rather than multiplying them), but these few comparisons will help the visitor to judge how far this element colours his appreciation of the whole.  As an illustration of mediaeval methods of church building, it is interesting to trace the growth of the structure with the help of the few historical notices already given and the evidence of the building itself.  The subject is full of difficulties, and the writer does not hope to solve them conclusively, but to put before the reader the main points which have to be considered before forming a judgement.

[Illustration:  TOWER ARCH.]

Both historic and structural evidence agree that there was an existing smaller church when the tower was built in the last quarter of the fourteenth century, that the choir and apse were either contemporary, or begun a few years earlier, and that the nave was built between 1434 and 1450.  The south porch and the west crypt (beneath the original Lady Chapel) are almost contemporary, belonging to the beginning of the fourteenth century.  Now the axis of the tower is parallel to the axis and walls of the nave, while the centre line of the choir is deflected towards the north about 7 deg..  Notwithstanding this, however, owing to the tower not being central with the nave, the axis of the choir, if prolonged, runs directly to the centre of the tower arch, as may easily be seen by anyone who stands there and looks along the ridge of the choir roof. (See dotted line on Plan.) Next we see above the tower arch the mark of the old nave roof and the old north wall of the nave.  These show that the south wall stood where the present one does, and the low-pitched fourteenth century roof-line suggests incidentally this alternative:  either a clearstory had been added to the nave before the building of the new chancel or tower was in contemplation, or, when the huge tower was built it was felt necessary to raise the nave roof so as to lessen the disproportion.  But, if we adopt the latter alternative we must accept too the improbability that this expense should have been incurred when the inadequacy of the old narrow nave of 15-1/2 feet compared with a chancel of 33 feet must have been so obvious.  This is one of the difficult questions.