6:i4 THEORY OF ARCIUTECTUIIE.

Book
U.
hittor scheme resulted in letting the principal rafters draw th^ tenons of the braces and
so
destroy all idea of a tie conneitin<r tlie two vvalis; hence tlie medieval builders
wers
obliged to raise the walls siiflicienlly high to allow the tie-boams to pass over the l);ick
of the ridge-rib, as would lie tiie case at A. Tliis was expensive, and, moreover, it vtas
scarcely praciicable wliere tlie walls were little thicker than was necessary for the
backing to the fdrn.eiets of the vaulting over the arches of windows. It is to these
facts, rather tlian to any influence of climate, that may be attril)uted the
adoption of
the high-pitclud roof, a system which required neither great width
of footing nor large
scantling of timl)er, for the purlines were discarded, and the weight was distiibuted among
the rafters and trusses of each b^iy. The details of such a roof are simple. 'I'wo plates A
(.Jig.
701c.) are placed with their widest sides on the wall, and are strutted between from
the feet of the trusses to the ceiitre of the bay. Upon these plates,
ta'isels or short hammers B, are cocked down at intervals between
the tie-beams, which are cocked down and dove-tailed, to take not
only the feet of the common rafters, but also the nearly upright stud
or ashlar rafter F, which serves to give a wider base to the prin-
cipal and to the rafter. All these vertical pieces are double-
tenoned and pinned into the other portions of the work.
205'ii7. The racking motion to which Lirge roofs are liable, soon
showed that this was not the manner in which to make them
secure. 'I'lie puilines had been discarded, but the need of their
service remained , the necessity was obviated by erecting a sort of
trussed partition under the ridge. If the king-post was )int car-
ried by the tie-beam, the whole roof depended upon the strength
of the head of the king-post, into which the ridge was tenoned,
and the manner in whic.i it was connected with the ends of the
principal rafters. It therefore appears to be more probalde tiiat
the king-post was supposed to be carried by the tie-beam; indeed,
exam])!es occur of trussed partitions
(fig.
~0\d.) to ridges, su|)poited by king-|)osts A,
which stand upon tie-beams that ride in queen-stinups, 15, where the stirrnjjs are hung
from the principal rafters at three-quarters of tl;e height of the roof. Care hiis been given
to this detail of the practice, because it seems to have
been entirely mistaken by VioUet le Due, Dlt. : for
example, the braces C, to the collars 1), are supposed
by him to exercise a favouiable eH'ect in pre-
venting the flexure of the rafter outwards, whereas
t!ie fact would seem to be that the brace lias to hold
up the collar D and with it tlie stirrup B, and witl;
them the tie-beam
^, for
tlie coilnr is tenoned into the
hiII
g
post and rafter. That author defers dating the
period of the perfecti.m of medicxval carpentry (as
well as of joinery) until the end of the 15th and the
beginning of the 16th century.
205'i/t Tlie flaming of cradle roofs, with king-posts
carried upon (^imt nini/hu/, as Viollet le Uuc sup-
poses) the tie-beams, became a practice that in
Fiance was general fiom the latter part of the 12tb
until the end of ihe 16th ceiitu j", and which con-
tinued the same peculiarities of construction that are
al)ove indicated The distinction between t!ie stirrup
and the post is less easy in the truss shown in^.^. 70le.,
but still it must be reckoned as a ))ost; this example
'r< m the prefec'ure, formerly the episcopal palace, at
Fig.
701c.
AT AI'.XEKRE. K.g. 701,;.
Auxerre, covers a IimII which is .30 feet wide ;
the trusses are placed 13 feet ajiart from centre
to centre. The scantlings are as follows;- King-posts, 5
by
5,
and principal rafters ."^ by
\\; the common rafters, 5 by
4f.
are shown in
Jiy.
10\f
. and are tru.s.sed in a difl^erent
manner; they are jilaced nearly
'2
feet apart. The roof ajpears to be boarded on the
inside to the circular form.
20.52;. Altliough Viollet le Due is of opinion that the tie-benms to the fine cradle roof,
51 feet 3 inches span, constructed at the beginning of the Kith century, over the great
hall of the Palais de Justice, at Rouen
(fff.
247
),
have been cut away, it may not be unfair
to suggest that the work might have stood ;is well if, in its construction, it had resembled
the older and fine roof of the chateau at SulIy-sur-Loire, which he so well illu.strates,
but which want of space prevents our also doing. The student has, perhaps, no cause
for regret, as its construction can scarcely be reconnnended for imitation in the present
day. It is about 36 feet span.
2052/i. The absence of a ridge roll and the position of the ridge-piece in the majority