A study of the two abbeys at Caen will illustrate this. Of the two, Saint Étienne or the Abbaye-aux-Hommes (cir. 1064-1066) would seem to be the earlier as far as its vaulting is concerned and this would seem to date from about 1135. In its nave (Fig. 26) the alternate system of supports is employed, though all the piers are of almost the same section with a single shaft carried up the inner face. The aisles are in two stories and there is a clerestory with a single window in each bay. The nave was originally covered with a wooden roof. With this elevation existing before the church was vaulted it is quite possible to account for the form which this vaulting assumed. The first step must have been to divide the nave into square bays by transverse arches,--assuming that these were not already in place. The springing of these arches must naturally have been governed by that of those which opened into the crossing, and the level of their crowns, by the wooden timbering of the roofs,--which may well have been in place when the vaults were built. The result was that these transverse arches had to rise from a point as low as the clerestory string-course and could only be a slightly stilted semicircle in elevation. If the [Illustration: 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