"Maeve B. Callan" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:>
>Here's the tale in toto,
thanks Maeve.
a couple of things jump out:
>For, in keeping with the custom of the Irish, she was building a church of
smooth wood
"smooth wood"?
perhaps intending "hewn beams" --as opposed to logs (which might be left in
the round)?
>with careful craft
well, sure.
as opposed to sloppy craft, which would not be fitting for a saint's house.
>...they were lacking the timber that is called _spina_ in Latin and
which is placed on the peak of the building to join together the two
sides of the roof.
this would be, in the technical parlance of Southern Indianer Carpentry, the
"ridge beam" which generally needs to be of a single piece, or at least of
pieces "spliced" together, which is a bit difficult to do and have the thing
have the necessary rigidity in all directions (simple splice joints can be
done which have rigidity in one or even two directions, but a good,
multidirectional splice joint is a bit of an ingenious device; surviving
examples seem to indicate that this type of joint peaked out in its evolution
in the late 13th-14th c. and then, curiously, *de*volved into progressively
weaker forms, until the introduction of metal --which was cheating-- in the
e.modern period. no examples survive from the 7th c., far as i know, but i'd
be surprised if the irish carpenters had the technology available to the high
M.A.).
so, the guys were looking for a single, long timber --perhaps longer than the
building was wide --which width would also call for long transverse timbers.)
>The artisans, seeking the kind of wood they needed, went into the woods and
searched until they found it in an inaccessible, difficult place.
story reminescent of the one told by abt suger, looking for his roof timbers
in the forest of Yvelines. don't have it to hand just now.
>They were not able to move the felled tree in any way because of the great
difficulty of its location.
i worked for a fellow who cut trees for a couple of seasons; more than half
his skill and a good part of the time envolved was in his *thinking* about
*just* how he would fell the thing --whether in the woods or
someone's yard-- *before* he cut it.
duh.
irish a bit slow on the uptake, it would seem.
>the next day, the aforementioned log was discovered by the artisans in the
level place
_platea_?
>located next to the monastery which could be approached without the
harm of beasts or people.
?
>The carpenters grew curious and wished to see if any trace of such a large
tree
[having been draged(?)]
>appeared along the path, but they caught sight only of some broken branches
in the top of the tree.
in the top of the tree that was felled??
well, no *wonder* they couldn't move it out of the forest --gee, guys,
*cut* the log out of it *before* you move it.... or, at least, cut the
branches off of it.
i would think that not only would the log have been cut out of it in the
woods, but that the beam would have been hewn out of the log there as
well --makes the thing hundreds of pounds lighter and easier to move, don't
you see. you can cart the chips off seperately if you wish, for kindling.
if the trans. is right, the text makes no *practical* sense --only as a good
hagiographic account, it makes for a better miracle: "broken
branches in the *top* of the tree".
>Hence it is given to be understood that what could not be done by human
strength was easily accomplished by the ministrations of angels.
nothing better than cheap labor.
>For that log.....was carried through the air without difficulty to the level
path through angelic art.
with the help of a sky hook, no doubt.
a tool which is increasingly harder to find, these days.
the whole thing a likely story.
actually my interest was in the use of the word "cruck" here, which, i
thought, might refer to a particular and peculiar type of construction in
which a tree with a low-lying branch is cut and riven (split) in two and the
two parts then hewn down to beam size; the two halves are then "book matched"
with the branches meeting at the top (at the _spina_), thereby forming both
two wall beams and two rafters.
apparently the earliest surviving examples are from the late middle ages, and
only in England(?).
ingenious as it is, i could never figure out what possible advantage such a
construction method yielded --seems to me to be a *lot* more work than
standard timber framing, without much gain. makes the roof somewhat stronger,
perhaps, but that's overkill.
but, in any event, a _spina_ ain't a "cruck", as they used to say.
thanks again, Maeve.
best from here,
christopher
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|