Fig. 26.—Caen, Saint Étienne.
bays thus constituted were to be covered by four-part vaults of Lombard type, the next step would have been to erect diagonals of semicircular section thus doming up the vault at the crown, but at Caen such diagonals would have rendered necessary an entire change in the timbering of the roof because their intersection would have risen above the level of the trusses. Hence segmental diagonals were substituted. Upon this skeleton of ribs, it would have been quite possible to place a four-part vault, but the wall intersection of its panels would have cut off the heads of the clerestory windows. Several methods could have been used to avoid this. In the first place the severies could have been so shaped as to cut the walls in a curve above the window, but this would have given a flattened form to the panel and rendered it most difficult both to construct and to support when in place. A second expedient would have been to reduce the size of the windows but this, besides cutting off most necessary light would have utterly destroyed the splendid proportions between the horizontal divisions of the Norman interior. A third method would have been to move the windows toward the intermediate pier, but this would have destroyed the axis line of the aisle, triforium, and window arches, and was wisely rejected. Lastly the imposts of the ribs could have been raised, but even this would have introduced enormous structural changes: first, because it would have rendered necessary a change in the timbering, or else raising the entire roof of the church; second, because it would have placed the new impost out of level with the crossing arches; third, because it would have greatly increased the thrust of the vault, already most difficult to meet because of the segmental form of the diagonals and the lack of extensive knowledge of buttressing principles on the part of the Norman builders.
To avoid all these difficulties and still retain the windows, a new method of vaulting was evolved. An intermediate transverse arch was added meeting the diagonals at their intersection, and above the triangular window cells thus formed, separate vault panels were constructed [(Fig. 26)]. The line of the window heads was thus left undisturbed and the six-part vault created ([Plate I-c.]).
False or Pseudo-Sexpartite Vaulting
Of course, the foregoing suggestion that the six-part vault was evolved from four-part vaulting is largely conjectural, but an examination of other churches in Normandy would seem to show that the Norman builders almost always preferred to use the simple four-part vault in a slightly modified form whenever it was possible to do so and still retain the clerestory windows, rather than to employ the developed six-part type. This modified four-part vault may properly be termed false or pseudo-sex-partite. That it was not a mere prototype of the more developed six-part form would seem to be shown by the fact that it was built in churches both contemporary with, and subsequent to those with true six-part vaults.
A good example of pseudo-sexpartite vaulting, for comparison with that of Saint Étienne [(Fig. 26)], is afforded by La Trinité or the Abbaye-aux-Dames at Caen [(Fig. 27)]. It would seem probable that the upper portions of this church were extensively rebuilt at the time when vaulting was added. In this rebuilding, concealed flying-buttresses were constructed beneath the side-aisle roofs, and these, together with the solid wall which