To Abbot William of Waterville succeeded Benedict (1177-1193).  Of him we are told that he built the whole nave in stone and wood-work, from the tower of the choir to the front, and also erected a rood-loft.  He built also the great gate-way at the west of the precincts, with the chapel of S. Nicolas above it, the chapel of S. Thomas of Canterbury and the hospital attached to it, the great hall with the buildings connected; and he also commenced that wonderful work (illud mirificum opus) near the brewery, but his death occurred before it could be completed.  What this last named great work was we do not know.  It is at least possible that the reference is to the western transept.

Considerable controversy has arisen as to the work in the church thus attributed to Benedict.  Both chronicles give him credit for building the whole nave from the tower of the choir to the front.  The wording, however, of the two is so similar as to cause some doubt as to their being independent authorities.  Granting that some small portion of the nave to the east, as before described, must have been built as a support to Waterville’s tower, the question remains, what is the front to which this record alludes?  There is of course no doubt that the words speak of the nave only, exclusive of the front.  But was this the present west front, as now remaining, or was there previously a Norman front to the church?  There is much to be said on both sides.  Mr Paley believes the latter; Mr Poole, the former.  And possibly the true solution may be found in a combination of both theories, though at first sight that seems impossible.  That a west front in Norman times was designed, and in part built, Mr Paley has shewn most conclusively.  He indeed thinks it was finished, but that is open to considerable doubt.  The evidence on which he proves that two western towers were at least designed is quite conclusive; and the whole passage in which he discusses the matter may be quoted.[9] “Proceeding towards the west end of the nave, we observe a very singular feature.  The third pillar from the west end on each side is considerably larger and wider than the others; and it also projects further into the aisles.  The arch also, springing from it westward, is of a much greater span.  The opposite vaulting shafts, in the aisle walls, are brought forward, beyond the line of the rest, to meet the pillars in question; so that the arch across the aisles is, in this part, very much contracted, and, instead of being a mere groin rib, like the rest, is a strong moulded arch of considerable depth in the soffit.  What appears at first sight, still more strange, the wall of the aisles opposite to the wider nave-arch just mentioned, is brought forward at least a foot internally, but again retires to the old level at the last bay; so that in this particular part the whole thickness of the aisle-wall is considerably greater.  Not less remarkable is the circumstance, that the half-pillars