solve this enigma in building: some authorities having declared their belief that it was a mere freak of the monks indulged in from pure eccentricity; others reason that it was intended to support a high cross, but surely a bridge would hardly have been built as a foundation for this? And it is so manifestly a bridge complete in itself, though novel in design, nor does there appear to me to be room for the base of an important cross on the apex of the arches where alone it could come. It is verily an archæological pons asinorum. Personally I find a difficulty in subscribing to either the freak or the cross theory; indeed, a more reasonable solution of the puzzle presents itself to me as one who does not look for out-of-the-way causes. It seems possible, rather should I say highly probable, that when the bridge was built, in the days before the drainage of the Fens, a stream may have flowed past here, and it may have been joined by another Y fashion. To cross these streams where they both met to the three points of dry ground would entail a triangular bridge, and the monks were equal to the occasion! The only fault I can find with this theory is that it is so simple! Shortly after writing this, in looking over an old portfolio of pictures, I chanced upon a rather crude, but fairly faithful, engraving of this very bridge. The work was not dated, but I judged it to be of the late seventeenth or of the early eighteenth century, a pure guess on my part. However, it is interesting to note that this ancient engraving showed two streams flowing under the bridge precisely as suggested. I merely mention
