STOW CHURCH,Mid-Lothian.

Fig. 1596.—Stenton Church. Doorway.

The upper story, which has a timber floor, has been reached by a ladder. It is lighted by a window on each face, round arched

Fig. 1597.—Stenton Church.Moulding of Doorway.

Fig. 1597.—Stenton Church.

Moulding of Doorway.

and widely splayed, and the arches are cut out of single stones. The tower finishes with a saddle-backed roof and crow-stepped gables, the whole being of the original construction.

From indications remaining against the north wall of the tower, there has doubtless been a high window in the west gable of the church.

Fig. 1598.—Font and Top Stone of Gable.

The whole structure appears to be of the sixteenth century. The top stone of the east gable and a simple circular font (Fig.1598) are lying near the ruin.

The village of Stow is situated on the Gala Water, in the southern part of Mid-Lothian, near the borders of Roxburghshire and Peeblesshire.

The parish was originally called Wedale, and the church belonged to the Bishop of St. Andrews, who had a residence there. Hence the village was known as the Stow of Wedale.

Fig. 1599.—Stow Church. Plan.

The original Church of St. Mary was at a distance from the village, but the existing ruin, which is partly of some antiquity, stands in the ancient churchyard close to the village.

Fig. 1600.—Stow Church. View from South-West.

The structure is for the most part of seventeenth century date, but a portion at the south-west angle is much older, and has been incorporatedwith the newer building. The plan of the church, as it now stands (Fig.1599), consists of an oblong 67 feet in length by 21 feet in width internally, with a wing on the south side 14 feet long by 11 feet wide within the walls.

The principal oblong chamber appears to have been constructed at two different times, there being a break in the interior of the wall at 20 feet from the east end. There is also a slight exterior projection on the outside of the north wall at the same point. The eastern addition has evidently been made so as to provide a gallery, probably a private one, at this end. The gallery was entered by a long slope or ramp on the exterior of the east wall, beneath which was a door giving access to the space below the gallery. The gallery and space below were lighted by square-headed windows in the south wall. On the jamb of the east doorway is carved the date 1799.

The arrangements at the west end have been similar to those at the east end. There was a gallery, lighted by a large traceried window (Fig.1600) in the west wall of seventeenth century design, and the space below the gallery had two square-headed windows in the same wall, divided with mullions. A round-headed doorway in the south wall gave

Fig. 1601.Stow Church.Mouldings of South Doorway.

Fig. 1601.

Stow Church.

Mouldings of South Doorway.

access to the space under the gallery, the mouldings of which (Fig.1601) clearly indicate a late date. Adjoining this doorway is the portion of the structure above alluded to as being of ancient date. This consists of a plain buttress built with freestone ashlar, and a small part of the south and west walls connected with it, including a base splay on the south side. These walls are built with the same kind of materials as the buttress, while the greater part of the walls are constructed with rubble work. The buttress has the broad form with small projection, and the simple water table of Norman or transition work.

The projection or “aisle” on the south side of the church has also contained a private gallery, with a fireplace in the south wall. The mouldings of the doorway indicate seventeenth or eighteenth century work.

There are no windows in the north wall, but some portions of the masonry are of ashlar work and may be of the period of the south-west angle.

The belfry, the vane of which bears the date of 1794, is a comparatively late addition. It is supported on corbels projecting from the inside of the wall.

Fig. 1602.—Terregles Church after Restoration.

Fig. 1603.—Terregles Church before Restoration.

This curious structure (Fig.1602) is situated about two and a-half miles north-west from Dumfries. It was erected by the fourth Lord Herries shortly before his death in 1583.

A few years ago this “queir” or choir was completely restored, and the buttresses were then added. Omitting these it may be regarded as a fair example of the quaint architecture of JamesVI.’s time, when the revival of Gothic was attempted, along with the revival of Episcopacy.

FINIALS ON CORNERS OF CHANCELAGNES LADY HERRIESFig. 1604.—Terragles Church. Details of Finials and Coat of Arms of Agnes, Lady Herries.

FINIALS ON CORNERS OF CHANCEL

AGNES LADY HERRIES

Fig. 1604.—Terragles Church. Details of Finials and Coat of Arms of Agnes, Lady Herries.

We are fortunate in being able to show a drawing (Fig.1603) of the church made by the late Mr. W. F. Lyon, architect, in 1872, before it was restored. Fig.1604shows details of the finials and the arms of Agnes, Lady Herries, which are carved on the church. The date 1585 is cut in the cornice over the east window.

Before the Reformation this church belonged to the nunnery of Lincluden, and the collegiate church which succeeded it.

This ancient church, which was dedicated to St. Congan, is a very old foundation, having probably been established, in the seventh century, by a follower of St. Columba. It received donations at various early dates, amongst others one by King Robert the Bruce. In 1272 it was attached by the Earl of Buchan to an almshouse for thirteen poor husbandmen. The church was 120 feet long by 18 feet wide, but is now reduced to the fragment of the choir, crowned with the picturesque belfry shown by thesketches. The belfry (Fig.1605) is interesting as an example of the application to an ecclesiastical edifice of the Scottish style so general in

Fig. 1605.—Turriff Church.Belfry.

Fig. 1605.—Turriff Church.

Belfry.

the domestic architecture of the seventeenth century. There is a strong dash of Renaissance taste in the design; but the cornice with its small corbels, and the string course with its moulded supports, might be details from any old Scottish castle. The bell bears the date 1557. A curious relic of the older structure has, however, been discovered in the choir in the form of an antique wall-painting of St. Ninian.

The interior of the choir contains

Fig. 1606.—Turriff Church. Gateway to Courtyard.

a very interesting and remarkably picturesque series of monumental slabs, with a quantity of well-executed lettering. One of these tablets is to the memory of a member of the family of Barclay of Towie, of date 1636, with a Latin inscription still legible.

The churchyard contains a number of interesting monuments of the same date as the belfry.

The gateway to the churchyard (Fig.1606) is a simple but pleasing specimen of the early Scottish Renaissance, similar in style to the belfry.

The parish church of Walston stands on a height overlooking the vale of the river Medwin, about two miles west from Dolphinton. Till near the end of the thirteenth century the Church of Walston was a lay rectory in the gift of the Lord of the Manor. It is specially referred to in an award of 1293.[261]The edifice stands in an ancient churchyard, and not far from what was formerly a mansion known as the “Place of Walston.”

Fig. 1607.—Walston Church. Plan.

The existing church (Fig.1607) stands north and south, and is a long single chamber 64 feet 6 inches in length and 16 feet in width internally. A portion has been cut off the north end to form a vestry. The original church is believed to have stood east and west. At the south end a portion of the existing structure is evidently, from its workmanship, of a different period from the remainder. The ashlar work of which it is built is seen to stop beyond the first window from the south (Fig.1608). This was doubtless the wing or transept erected by Robert Baillie of Walston, in 1650, as a burial-place for his family. The remainder of the church was rebuilt in its new position in continuation of the south wingby the Rev. Patrick Molleson, minister (born 1746, died 1825), who has placed the letters M. P. M. and the date 1789 on the north gable.

Fig. 1608.—Walston Church. View from South-West.

The south wing is the only part worthy of notice. The window shows the feeling for the Gothic revival of the seventeenth century. In the panel over it is the inscription “Give God the onlie honour and glory.

Fig. 1609.—Walston Church, showing Dormer.

Anno 1656.” The entrance doorway to the wing, which contained a tomb below and a gallery above, is in the east side. Over the flat lintelled door is the quotation, “Keep thy foot when thou goest to the House of God, and be more ready to hear than to give the sacrifice of fools.—Ecclesiastes, chapterV., verse 1.” The tomb and gallery are now removed, and the space thrown into the church. In the pavement on the site is inscribed “In memory of John Allain, Esq., of Elsrickle.” The quaint dormer window, shown in Fig.1609, was taken down during the repairs made on the church a few years ago.

WEEM CHURCH,Perthshire.[262]

The ruined church of Weem stands in the village of that name, near the entrance to Castle Menzies, at a short distance from Aberfeldy. It is still in a fair state of preservation, the walls being entire, although greatly overgrown with ivy, and the roof being still intact, with the belfry on the west gable. The building has been abandoned for many years. According to Mr. A. H. Millar[262]the Church of Weem is mentioned about 1296 in the oldest charter at Castle Menzies, and references in charters are continuous till, in 1510, the Barony of Menzies was erected by charter from JamesIV., when “the patronage of the Kirk of Weem was specially included in the gift.”

Fig. 1610.—Weem Church. Inscription over East Doorway.

The existing building, however, appears to be of a later date, since over the eastmost doorway there are the impaled arms of Sir Alexander Menzies and his wife, Margaret Campbell, with their initials, and the date 1600, together with the inscription shown in Fig.1610.[263]

The church (Fig.1611) is an oblong building, measuring internally about 62 feet 5 inches from east to west by about 19 feet wide, and has a north transept projecting 21 feet by 17 feet in width. It is ceiled and plastered at the roof ties. There are two doors and three windows on the south side, all of which are square headed. In each gable, high up near the ceiling, there is a window of a pointed form. All the windows and doors have large bead mouldings. In the inside of the south wall thereare two ambries, one of which contains the initials of Duncan Menzies and his wife, Jean Leslie, sister of the Earl of Rothes, who were married in 1623. And on the other occur the initials D. M.

There are several interesting grave slabs in the church, but the most remarkable feature is the monument shown in Fig.1612, which stands against the north wall near the east end, as indicated on the Plan. It is an important example of Scottish Renaissance work, and contains a great amount of detail, much of it very elaborate.

The sixteenth or seventeenth century monuments in Scotland may be divided into two classes, viz.:—First, the class represented by the Montgomery monument at Largs,[264]and the seventeenth century monument in Seton Church, which are almost pure Italian, with very little of the previous Gothic manner, and almost nothing of local or Scottish feeling. Monuments of this class may probably be the design, if not the work, of foreign hands. In the second class are the monuments which seem to

Fig. 1611.—Weem Church. Plan.

owe their design and execution to native skill, and amongst these may be included this monument at Weem. The structure measures about 13 feet in length at the base, and has a projection from the wall of about 2 feet.

The general scheme of the design is of an ordinary form, consisting of an arched recess above a dado or pedestal, which is divided into three panels separated from each other by delicate tapering shafts. At each side rises a half round engaged shaft to carry the moulded arch above. These shafts have capitals, rudely carved with oak leaves, supporting square abaci. Above the arch there is a level cornice slightly broken at intervals over figures beneath. At each side of the monument a large figure stands on a finely designed pedestal, the one representing Faith and the other Charity. The former holds a book with the inscription,Quidquid fit sine Fide est peccatum, while the figure of Charity is represented in the usual typical manner. The figures are surmounted with very beautifulcanopies reaching nearly up to the cornice. Above the cornice a rudimentary pediment contains the Menzies and Campbell arms and monograms, over which, and leaning forward, is a panel having a figure with

Fig. 1612.—Monument in Weem Church.

outstretched arms, supposed to symbolise the Creator. At each end of the cornice is a kneeling figure placed before a small pedestal shaped like a prie-dieu.

This monument having been erected not to the memory of one individual, but of several, was probably not intended to contain any recumbent figure, although the space for one is provided. Such a figure would have in a great measure concealed the descriptive tablet and its accompanying heraldry, which occupy the background of the recess. The monument bears the date of the 24th January 1616, and was erected by the Sir Alexander Menzies already referred to, to perpetuate the memory of his two wives and of his maternal ancestors, beginning with his great-great-grandmother. The names of all these ladies, with the arms of their respective houses, adorn the monument, and need not be repeated here, as full information regarding them will be found in Mr. Millar’s work, already cited.

The parish church of Yester stands at the north end of the village of Gifford, about four and a half miles south of Haddington. The

Fig. 1613.—Gifford Tower, from South-West.

ancient church of Yester has already been described. It was superseded last century by the present structure, which is a plain oblong chamber of the usual style of the period, but with a tower on the south side (Fig.1613), which is a good example of that class of erection at the period.

The illustration or tailpiece on the following page shows a remarkable specimen of early Scottish sculpture, preserved in the Museum of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland in Edinburgh.

The stone, which is about 6 feet in length, was found in the River May, Perthshire, and is supposed to have come from an ancient church which formerly occupied a site within a rath or stronghold which stood on the Holy Hill, on the bank of the river, near Forteviot, about two miles from Forgandenny.[265]The last traces of the rath and church were swept away by a flood which occurred in the beginning of this century.

This early church is probably that referred to in the legend of St. Andrew given in thePictish Chronicleas the church built at Forteviot by Hungus, the Pictish king (731-761), in the last year of his reign, after the arrival of the relics of St. Andrew in Scotland.[266]Although the character of the sculpture seems rather to suggest a date not quite so early, it may, nevertheless, be surmised that the figures depicted on the stone are those of King Hungus and his three sons, seated in the usual royal attitude, with the sword across the knees.

From the arched form of the stone it seems most likely to have been a chancel arch, a feature which would scarcely be expected in Scotland in the eighth century. The primitive church may, however, have been rebuilt, possibly in the tenth century, when a church with a chancel would more probably be erected, having the stone in question for its chancel arch. The small upright animal in the centre of the arch, having a cross in front of it, seems to represent the Paschal lamb; while the other nondescript animal at the feet of the king may be an early example of the practice usual in mediæval monuments of resting the feet of the effigy on an animal.[267]On the Ruthwell Cross the figure of the Saviour appears standing on the heads of two animals.

Sculptured Stone from Ruins of Ancient Church at Forteviot, Perthshire.

The following is a statement by Mr. W. Galloway in defence of his views regarding the date of the walls of St. Blane’s Church, Bute:[268]—

“Objections are taken in the notice of St. Blane’s Chapel, Bute (Vol.I.p. 297), to the views advanced by me in theArchæologia Scotica(Vol.V.p. 217) as to the priority in date and construction of the rubble part of the chancel, over the Romanesque structure conjoined with it. These are specially summarised under three heads, in the first of which exception is taken to the fact of there being a base, topped with a small splayed freestone course, with rubble above and below, which is supposed to contravene the ideas ordinarily entertained as to Celtic practice. This practice, however, was strictly dependent upon and fixed by the nature of the building materials that happened to be available in any particular locality. In out of the way districts and far-off islands, where freestone was unknown or not procurable, the builder had to be content with the stone that came most readily to hand, necessity, not choice, compelling his selection. This is proven by the avidity with which the Celt took to freestone whenever it could be got.“No better illustration can be selected than Oransay Priory (Vol.III.pp. 372-381). There the south cloister arcade, the door to the church adjoining it, with the chapel projecting at the north-east angle (and to these may be added theTeampul na ghlinne, on the Colonsay side of the strand), are examples of rubble building, in the local schist, where arches are turned and openings formed without a trace of freestone or any material that could be hewn. The portion of a mullion of transitional date found in the ruins proves that freestone had been imported to the island by the close of the twelfth century, and was in constant use thereafter.“It would be a serious mistake, however, to place in the same category the Island of Bute, where freestone (red) occurs locally, and the best qualities of rock on the adjoining mainland. Freestone was in common use with the Romans both for monumental work and building, and it is precisely this simple splayed form of base which is most frequently to be found. As to its use in Celtic work there may be cited Cruggleton Chapel (Vol.I.pp. 212-215), about three miles from Whitherne Priory, which by every criterion is extremely primitive, much earlier than the priory, and also Celtic, founded most probably by the Carrols or M‘Kerlies, who wrested the castle from the Norse jarls. There the base, which has been laid on the grass level, has a base course precisely similar to that of St. Blane’s, with rubble above and below. In fact, the entire building is rubble, except the dressed work and the chancel arch. It is not freestone, but silurian grit, from the Stewartry shores. It is no doubt later in date thanSt. Blane’s, but Bute is much more favourably situated for freestone than Wigtonshire, where it is locally non-existent, and the combination of rubble and hewn work at Cruggleton is a striking testimony to the difficulty even of obtaining grit.“The second head refers to the mode in which the strings and base courses would be stopped against the rubble. According to my drawings there has been a string on the north side of the nave, which dropped nearly two feet, has also run along the ashlar work of the chancel, but only two feet or so of it remains. On the south side this feature is entirely destroyed. The base, both on north and south sides of the nave, returns round the chancel gable andthere terminates. Whether they were dropped also I cannot tell, as these drawings were made previous to the later reduction of the soil to the original level.[269]An important point in this junction of rubble and ashlar walls must be noted, viz., that while the ashlar walls are 2 feet 7 inches thick, the rubble wall on the south side is only 2 feet 5 inches, and that on the north 2 feet 3 inches. The walls meet flush on the outside, and on the inside the ashlar corner is splayed off in accommodation to the thinner rubble, and those who managed thus would find no difficulty in such trivialities as a string or a base.“Under the third head it is queried whether the ‘Normanbuilders’ were likely to show such tender mercy to a rubble fragment? I presume ‘Norman’ here meansAnglo-Norman, the conquering race, who looked with contempt on all that pertained to those they held in thrall. Civil changes notwithstanding, in Bute it was otherwise. There the same traditions were handed down from Celt to Scot, and the name of St. Blaan was reverenced, not merely on local grounds, but as being still more intimately associated with a northern see. The very curiousmelangeat the east end of the chapel is attributed to one of those ‘accidents’ which, from a variety of sources, often befel buildings in ancient times. The late Mr John Baird, at a meeting of the Architectural Institute of Scotland held in Glasgow a good many years ago, suggested that the original termination had been an apse, but the chancel being found too small, this feature was demolished and the building extended to its present limits. Notwithstanding all that has been said, I consider both the apse and the accident theories to be at once untenable and unnecessary, and will, as briefly as possible, give threecriteriaon which I regard the proof of antecedency in date and construction of the rubble work ultimately to depend, and to be incontrovertible. First, in a rubble wall of any posterior date, built to conjoin with a previous ashlar one, it is only reasonable to suppose it would have been gauged to the same thickness, so that the respective wall faces might be flush, both externally and internally, so as to avoid the very awkward junction which there really has been. Second, this rubble wall must necessarily have been carried to the same height and level, in the wall-head, as the ashlar built portion, instead of being dropped nearly three feet below it, as the present rubble work really is. Third, the existing Romanesque structure shows that freestone, both red and white, was readily to be had by importation or otherwise in Bute, during the twelfth century, and ever afterwards, and it is beyond all reason and experience, that in the chancel especially rubble of some local rock should have been adopted when the superior quality previously in use could be so easily obtained.

“No better illustration can be selected than Oransay Priory (Vol.III.pp. 372-381). There the south cloister arcade, the door to the church adjoining it, with the chapel projecting at the north-east angle (and to these may be added theTeampul na ghlinne, on the Colonsay side of the strand), are examples of rubble building, in the local schist, where arches are turned and openings formed without a trace of freestone or any material that could be hewn. The portion of a mullion of transitional date found in the ruins proves that freestone had been imported to the island by the close of the twelfth century, and was in constant use thereafter.

“It would be a serious mistake, however, to place in the same category the Island of Bute, where freestone (red) occurs locally, and the best qualities of rock on the adjoining mainland. Freestone was in common use with the Romans both for monumental work and building, and it is precisely this simple splayed form of base which is most frequently to be found. As to its use in Celtic work there may be cited Cruggleton Chapel (Vol.I.pp. 212-215), about three miles from Whitherne Priory, which by every criterion is extremely primitive, much earlier than the priory, and also Celtic, founded most probably by the Carrols or M‘Kerlies, who wrested the castle from the Norse jarls. There the base, which has been laid on the grass level, has a base course precisely similar to that of St. Blane’s, with rubble above and below. In fact, the entire building is rubble, except the dressed work and the chancel arch. It is not freestone, but silurian grit, from the Stewartry shores. It is no doubt later in date thanSt. Blane’s, but Bute is much more favourably situated for freestone than Wigtonshire, where it is locally non-existent, and the combination of rubble and hewn work at Cruggleton is a striking testimony to the difficulty even of obtaining grit.

“The second head refers to the mode in which the strings and base courses would be stopped against the rubble. According to my drawings there has been a string on the north side of the nave, which dropped nearly two feet, has also run along the ashlar work of the chancel, but only two feet or so of it remains. On the south side this feature is entirely destroyed. The base, both on north and south sides of the nave, returns round the chancel gable andthere terminates. Whether they were dropped also I cannot tell, as these drawings were made previous to the later reduction of the soil to the original level.[269]An important point in this junction of rubble and ashlar walls must be noted, viz., that while the ashlar walls are 2 feet 7 inches thick, the rubble wall on the south side is only 2 feet 5 inches, and that on the north 2 feet 3 inches. The walls meet flush on the outside, and on the inside the ashlar corner is splayed off in accommodation to the thinner rubble, and those who managed thus would find no difficulty in such trivialities as a string or a base.

“Under the third head it is queried whether the ‘Normanbuilders’ were likely to show such tender mercy to a rubble fragment? I presume ‘Norman’ here meansAnglo-Norman, the conquering race, who looked with contempt on all that pertained to those they held in thrall. Civil changes notwithstanding, in Bute it was otherwise. There the same traditions were handed down from Celt to Scot, and the name of St. Blaan was reverenced, not merely on local grounds, but as being still more intimately associated with a northern see. The very curiousmelangeat the east end of the chapel is attributed to one of those ‘accidents’ which, from a variety of sources, often befel buildings in ancient times. The late Mr John Baird, at a meeting of the Architectural Institute of Scotland held in Glasgow a good many years ago, suggested that the original termination had been an apse, but the chancel being found too small, this feature was demolished and the building extended to its present limits. Notwithstanding all that has been said, I consider both the apse and the accident theories to be at once untenable and unnecessary, and will, as briefly as possible, give threecriteriaon which I regard the proof of antecedency in date and construction of the rubble work ultimately to depend, and to be incontrovertible. First, in a rubble wall of any posterior date, built to conjoin with a previous ashlar one, it is only reasonable to suppose it would have been gauged to the same thickness, so that the respective wall faces might be flush, both externally and internally, so as to avoid the very awkward junction which there really has been. Second, this rubble wall must necessarily have been carried to the same height and level, in the wall-head, as the ashlar built portion, instead of being dropped nearly three feet below it, as the present rubble work really is. Third, the existing Romanesque structure shows that freestone, both red and white, was readily to be had by importation or otherwise in Bute, during the twelfth century, and ever afterwards, and it is beyond all reason and experience, that in the chancel especially rubble of some local rock should have been adopted when the superior quality previously in use could be so easily obtained.

“These threecriteriacombined, the thinness (relatively) of the rubble walling, the lower level of the wall-head, and the extreme improbability of any subsequent builders being reduced to the necessity of falling back on rubble, lead irresistibly to the conviction that on this site there existed a much smaller and more ancient chapel, of which thesacrarium, carefully respected by all subsequent builders, now alone remains.”

At the special request of Mr. P. Macgregor Chalmers, author of the workA Scots Mediæval Architect, we insert in this Volume extracts, revised and approved by him, from his reply to our criticism contained in Vol.II.pp. 378-382, in the hope that they may be found to throw additional light on the late period of Scottish architecture. It must, however, be understood that we are not to be held as concurring in all Mr. Chalmers’ views. Our notice of his work was written after our second volume was to a large extent in type, and we should not have quoted Mr. Pinches’ reference to church building in Galloway in 1508 (p. 378), as Mr. Chalmers had already shown in his work that this was a mistake; and on the same page we should have acknowledged his labours on the Melrose inscriptions. Mr. Chalmers says:—

“You tabulate four formal objections to my work (p. 380). The first appears to be that I have adopted a certain opinion, which differs from yours; and you think my work is therefore a ‘fiction,’ a ‘romance,’ a ‘dream.’ The second objection, based on yourinferencethat a man who had a Scots name was a Frenchman by extraction, because he was born in Paris at a time when Scotsmen were rife in France, need not be taken seriously. The answer to your third and fourth objections is that I haveproved, from original documents quoted, that ‘Morow’ is ‘Murray,’ and that the variation in spelling, indicated in the Melrose inscriptions, is the variation for Murray. When you have grasped the importance and significance of my deduction from the evident choice of Melrose for the memorial inscriptions, I feel certain you will find more than ‘fiction’ in my work.“I stated that the rood screen at Glasgow was erected by Archbishop Blacader, and that it was probably begun about the year 1492. The charter evidence is that the archbishop founded the two altars in their present position in the base of the screen, and that he founded the altarfor which the screen was erected, the altar of Holy Cross. As the screen encroaches considerably on the original length of the choir, being of great depth from west to east, it is natural to suppose that its erection would entail the remodelling of the choir fittings. It was in the archbishop’s time, then, that the new choir stalls were constructed. From the measurements given in the contract for this work, between ‘the dene and cheptour of Glasgw on the tapairt, and Mychell Waghorn, wrycht, on the toder pairt,’ it is evident that the carved canopy work was carried as a cornice across the east or choir side of the screen. Rejecting my work, you state that the screen at Glasgow was probably built by Bishop Cameron, who died in 1446. You have no charter evidence to support you. You have only the mouldings and the sculpture of the two periods to found your opinion upon. In the illustration I send you (Fig.1) I show the earlier mouldings atAand the later mouldings of the screen atB. Students can now estimate the value of your opinion. The only moulding in the aisle of Car Fergus, of Blacader’s time,is the vaulting rib which I show atC. This, you say, is a ‘coarse’ moulding. But the coarseness is not apparent when you compare it with the rib in theFig. 1.Mouldings of Rood Screen at St. Mungo’s.sacristy (D), of date about 1446; the rib in the chapter house (E), of date about 1425; or the same rib in the lower church, of date about 1240. You frequently give expression to your opinion that the work executed in Scotland about the year 1500 was ‘inferior.’ Sweeping generalisations of this kind are of no value in our work. I send you a process block (Fig.2). It illustrates the carved boss in the vaulting of the aisle of Car Fergus, of Blacader’s time, being the very first seen on entering, and so close to the eye that it may almost be touched by the hand. No work of any period—certainly not of Bishop Cameron’s time—can excel it in beauty, and it is only one of many equally beautiful. You state that the work in the screen ‘is considerably superior to that of the adjoining altars, which arecertainlyby that bishop’ (ArchbishopBlacader). It is a fact that you are here comparing work, which is as sharp as when it left the carver’s hand, with work at the floor level which is now so worn and defaced as almost to be obliterated. The altars are of different design, and that now on the north side is ofearlier date, and was rebuilt and repaired only by the archbishop. If this single altar stood originally in the centre, as the one of the same name did at Durham, and if, as is not impossible, it was originally built by Bishop Cameron, then you condemn as ‘inferior’ what, if you had only known, you ought to praise as ‘superior.’“Mr. Honeyman, whose early opinion you quote, writing to me, for my use here, says, in reference to the Glasgow rood screen—‘I must say that circumstances which you have brought to my notice have considerably changed my opinion regarding this. I quite recognise the close affinity of the south transept door at Melrose and the rood screen at Lincluden, and I am quite prepared to believe that the man who designed these, also designed the rood screen here. If it can be proved that the work at Melrose and Lincluden was not executed till about 1480, or later, then I shall feel bound to agree with you as to the age of our screen.’ The proof as to the age of the Melrose door has been given in my book.“Your reliance on your unwise generalisation regarding the ‘inferior’ quality ofallwork at the end of the fifteenth century has blinded you to the facts at Melrose, as elsewhere. The magnificent panel carved with the royal arms, of which I gave an enlarged photograph (p. 55), is dated 1505. There is nothing finer of its kind in the country, and the carved bosses in the presbytery vault are remarkable for their rare beauty, and yet one of them bears the arms of Margaret, wife of JamesIV.You state that ‘the building or restoration of theeastern part of the edifice seems, from its style, to have been carried out towards the middle of the fifteenth century’ (p. 372). The further statement is made that ‘the design of the choir appears to have been borrowed from that of the transept’ (p. 370). These statements are contradictory. The south transept was not erected until after the middle of the fifteenth century, by Abbot Andrew Hunter. His arms are to be found carved on it, and also in the nave chapel, where the work is unmistakeably from the hand of the same designer. It is indubitable that the ‘perpendicular’ work was inserted in the older transept. It has never occurred to you to endeavour to explain the presence in ScotlandFig. 2.—Carved Boss in Vaulting of Aisle of Car Fergus.of so marked a type of English artin the middle of the fifteenth century, and you have thought it wise to ignore my interpretation that this style was adopted as an expression of the international good feeling arising from the marriage of JamesIV.with Margaret of England. Perpendicular work is also present at Linlithgow and Stirling, and there also it is associated with Queen Margaret.“I described the statues at the apex of the east gable at Melrose as those of JamesIV.and Margaret (p. 53). You say ‘this is an entire assumption’ (p. 381), and then you immediatelyassumethat they illustrate the coronation of the Blessed Virgin. If your interpretation is correct, the act of coronation must be indicated, and the two figures must be correlated, Christ being turned towards the BlessedVirgin, either to crown her by His own hand, or to indicate His interest in the ceremony, whilst Mary is turned towards Christ in an attitude of tenderness and adoration. These are obvious requirements. The figures are so disposed in the examples you cited and illustrated, and it is true of all the examples I have studied on the Continent and in the cathedrals of England. At Melrose the figures are not in any way related to each other. They look straight forward, and, as I proved by the aid of a telescope before writing my description, no act of crowning is indicated. The male figure corresponds exactly with that on the seal of JamesIV.to which I referred, and the group does not differ from that shown in a MS. of the middle of the fifteenth century, which represents a king and queen and their court. I understand and appreciate the fact that you see no significance in the angels in the niches below the central group of the king and queen, and that it is of no importance to you that the figures which were ranged on either side were not those of saints and martyrs, but of Churchmen, evidently contemporaries of King James. As the statue of an archbishop graces the apex of the east gable of York Minster, there is nothing ridiculous, as you would wish to make it appear, in a king and queen occupying a similar place at Melrose. The circumstances and temper of the moment made it appear appropriate. There is no sarcasm in the concluding paragraph of my work, although you profess to be able to detect it. It was not unpleasant to me to find that the point made by the author ofThe Stones of Venice, from exactly similar exhibitions of vainglory, could be made from the stones of Scotland.P. MACGREGOR CHALMERS.”

“I stated that the rood screen at Glasgow was erected by Archbishop Blacader, and that it was probably begun about the year 1492. The charter evidence is that the archbishop founded the two altars in their present position in the base of the screen, and that he founded the altarfor which the screen was erected, the altar of Holy Cross. As the screen encroaches considerably on the original length of the choir, being of great depth from west to east, it is natural to suppose that its erection would entail the remodelling of the choir fittings. It was in the archbishop’s time, then, that the new choir stalls were constructed. From the measurements given in the contract for this work, between ‘the dene and cheptour of Glasgw on the tapairt, and Mychell Waghorn, wrycht, on the toder pairt,’ it is evident that the carved canopy work was carried as a cornice across the east or choir side of the screen. Rejecting my work, you state that the screen at Glasgow was probably built by Bishop Cameron, who died in 1446. You have no charter evidence to support you. You have only the mouldings and the sculpture of the two periods to found your opinion upon. In the illustration I send you (Fig.1) I show the earlier mouldings atAand the later mouldings of the screen atB. Students can now estimate the value of your opinion. The only moulding in the aisle of Car Fergus, of Blacader’s time,is the vaulting rib which I show atC. This, you say, is a ‘coarse’ moulding. But the coarseness is not apparent when you compare it with the rib in the

Fig. 1.Mouldings of Rood Screen at St. Mungo’s.

Fig. 1.

Mouldings of Rood Screen at St. Mungo’s.

sacristy (D), of date about 1446; the rib in the chapter house (E), of date about 1425; or the same rib in the lower church, of date about 1240. You frequently give expression to your opinion that the work executed in Scotland about the year 1500 was ‘inferior.’ Sweeping generalisations of this kind are of no value in our work. I send you a process block (Fig.2). It illustrates the carved boss in the vaulting of the aisle of Car Fergus, of Blacader’s time, being the very first seen on entering, and so close to the eye that it may almost be touched by the hand. No work of any period—certainly not of Bishop Cameron’s time—can excel it in beauty, and it is only one of many equally beautiful. You state that the work in the screen ‘is considerably superior to that of the adjoining altars, which arecertainlyby that bishop’ (ArchbishopBlacader). It is a fact that you are here comparing work, which is as sharp as when it left the carver’s hand, with work at the floor level which is now so worn and defaced as almost to be obliterated. The altars are of different design, and that now on the north side is ofearlier date, and was rebuilt and repaired only by the archbishop. If this single altar stood originally in the centre, as the one of the same name did at Durham, and if, as is not impossible, it was originally built by Bishop Cameron, then you condemn as ‘inferior’ what, if you had only known, you ought to praise as ‘superior.’

“Mr. Honeyman, whose early opinion you quote, writing to me, for my use here, says, in reference to the Glasgow rood screen—‘I must say that circumstances which you have brought to my notice have considerably changed my opinion regarding this. I quite recognise the close affinity of the south transept door at Melrose and the rood screen at Lincluden, and I am quite prepared to believe that the man who designed these, also designed the rood screen here. If it can be proved that the work at Melrose and Lincluden was not executed till about 1480, or later, then I shall feel bound to agree with you as to the age of our screen.’ The proof as to the age of the Melrose door has been given in my book.

“Your reliance on your unwise generalisation regarding the ‘inferior’ quality ofallwork at the end of the fifteenth century has blinded you to the facts at Melrose, as elsewhere. The magnificent panel carved with the royal arms, of which I gave an enlarged photograph (p. 55), is dated 1505. There is nothing finer of its kind in the country, and the carved bosses in the presbytery vault are remarkable for their rare beauty, and yet one of them bears the arms of Margaret, wife of JamesIV.You state that ‘the building or restoration of theeastern part of the edifice seems, from its style, to have been carried out towards the middle of the fifteenth century’ (p. 372). The further statement is made that ‘the design of the choir appears to have been borrowed from that of the transept’ (p. 370). These statements are contradictory. The south transept was not erected until after the middle of the fifteenth century, by Abbot Andrew Hunter. His arms are to be found carved on it, and also in the nave chapel, where the work is unmistakeably from the hand of the same designer. It is indubitable that the ‘perpendicular’ work was inserted in the older transept. It has never occurred to you to endeavour to explain the presence in Scotland

Fig. 2.—Carved Boss in Vaulting of Aisle of Car Fergus.

of so marked a type of English artin the middle of the fifteenth century, and you have thought it wise to ignore my interpretation that this style was adopted as an expression of the international good feeling arising from the marriage of JamesIV.with Margaret of England. Perpendicular work is also present at Linlithgow and Stirling, and there also it is associated with Queen Margaret.

“I described the statues at the apex of the east gable at Melrose as those of JamesIV.and Margaret (p. 53). You say ‘this is an entire assumption’ (p. 381), and then you immediatelyassumethat they illustrate the coronation of the Blessed Virgin. If your interpretation is correct, the act of coronation must be indicated, and the two figures must be correlated, Christ being turned towards the BlessedVirgin, either to crown her by His own hand, or to indicate His interest in the ceremony, whilst Mary is turned towards Christ in an attitude of tenderness and adoration. These are obvious requirements. The figures are so disposed in the examples you cited and illustrated, and it is true of all the examples I have studied on the Continent and in the cathedrals of England. At Melrose the figures are not in any way related to each other. They look straight forward, and, as I proved by the aid of a telescope before writing my description, no act of crowning is indicated. The male figure corresponds exactly with that on the seal of JamesIV.to which I referred, and the group does not differ from that shown in a MS. of the middle of the fifteenth century, which represents a king and queen and their court. I understand and appreciate the fact that you see no significance in the angels in the niches below the central group of the king and queen, and that it is of no importance to you that the figures which were ranged on either side were not those of saints and martyrs, but of Churchmen, evidently contemporaries of King James. As the statue of an archbishop graces the apex of the east gable of York Minster, there is nothing ridiculous, as you would wish to make it appear, in a king and queen occupying a similar place at Melrose. The circumstances and temper of the moment made it appear appropriate. There is no sarcasm in the concluding paragraph of my work, although you profess to be able to detect it. It was not unpleasant to me to find that the point made by the author ofThe Stones of Venice, from exactly similar exhibitions of vainglory, could be made from the stones of Scotland.

P. MACGREGOR CHALMERS.”

A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,Y.

Back to Index Next