The true reason for this distinction is probably to be sought in the same direction as that which prompted the peculiar diaconal method of wearing the _orarium_—convenience. The deacon, who was practically the servitor at the altar, required to have his right side free and unhampered as much as possible; the heavy fringes, which might have impeded him, were therefore dispensed with upon that side. But such an explanation would by no means satisfy the early mediaeval writers on vestments, and we are accordingly informed that as the left side typifies this present life and the right that which is to come, so the fringes on the left indicate those cares through which we must pass in this world, while their absence on the right symbolizes our freedom from care in the world to come. Why the bishop was not regarded as exempt from care in the future world does not appear. Another singular piece of blundering meets us at St David's Cathedral. Here we have two effigies representing clerics, who, though they wear the dalmatic, yet show the stole disposed symmetrically, in the manner of priests.[55] Either the presence of the dalmatic or the presbyteral stole must be incorrect; but in our ignorance of the identity of the persons whom these effigies commemorate we cannot decide which. Bloxam's idea, that these figures represent archdeacons, though ingenious, is untenable; for there is no authority for assigning the dalmatic to an archdeacon of priestly grade; and we have other figures of priests known to have been archdeacons in various parts of England, none of which show the dalmatic. The ornamentation of the dalmatic before the twelfth century consisted either of vertical bands (like the _clavi_) or else of horizontal bands, of orphrey-work. After that date the plain white vestment was superseded by one covered all over with elaborate embroidery. This is especially the case with the episcopal dalmatic, which is only what we should have expected. We have already stated one symbolical meaning attaching to the dalmatic and its appurtenances. A few more may be of interest: the Passion of Christ; the 'pure religion and undefiled,' as described by St James; the Old and New Testaments; the crucifixion of the world in the wearer; the wide mercy of Christ, etc. All of the early writers are misled by the decree of Pope Sylvester into imagining that Sylvester first instituted this garment as a purely ecclesiastical vestment; some even go the length of assigning a mystical meaning to the _colobium_, which it superseded. Even Walafrid Strabo, who in many respects is the least mystical of the early mediaeval writers on ecclesiastical vestments, is deceived, though he wisely contents himself with stating the fact that Sylvester had so commanded, without attempting to assign any reason for his so doing. VII. _The Chasuble._—The variety of materials of which the chasuble was made may be gathered from the following extracts from the Lincoln Inventory of 1536: