1. Without entering into the question as between the “master of the
work” and the “master mason,” or attempting to prove by whom mediæval
buildings were designed, we believe it has been distinctly shown that
there was in Scotland, about A.D. 1500, no one recognised as “the
architect” apart from the builder. The “master of the works” was a fully
recognised and salaried officer, and would, we believe, be more likely
to receive a tablet such as this than the master mason.[136]
2. But supposing that John Morow, to whom the tablet was erected, was a
master mason. It is assumed that John Morow was a Scot. The inscription
emphasises the statement that he was “born in Paris certainly,” from
which it may be fairly inferred that his French birth and, probably,
education had to do with his appointment. This might indicate that he
was a French master mason; and it is known that many French master
masons were employed under James IV. and V.
3. It is assumed that the name Morow is identical with Murray (an idea
which was suggested, in 1854, by the late Dr. John Smith[137]), but this
is entirely hypothetical. Besides, there is absolutely no evidence
produced to show any connection between John Morow and John Murray of
Faulohill.
4. Nor can it be shown that the latter had any connection with building
or architecture.
Let us now glance at the descriptions of the various portions of Melrose
Abbey which are assumed by Mr. Chalmers to be the work of John Morow.
There seems to be nothing in Mr. Chalmers’ views antagonistic to the
general divisions of Scottish mediæval architecture adopted in this
book; indeed, his observations seem to confirm these divisions, which
assign to the decorated work in Scotland the period before 1460, and to
the late or third pointed work the subsequent period.
Supposing this to be correct, we suspect that some of the work which Mr
Chalmers attributes to John Morow, and of the date of about 1490 to
1510, is in the earlier category. At Melrose, as we have seen, the
decorated work is before 1460, and the later work is quite inferior.
Hence the necessity for the introduction of the earlier John Morvo, to
whom we have no objections, if his existence could be proved. At all
events, it must be conceded that the earlier or decorated work was not
executed by the “Scots Mediæval Architect,” John Morow.
The same remark will, we think, be found to apply to the rood screen at
Lincluden,[138] and to that at Glasgow,[139] the work at both of which
is very superior to the sixteenth century work at Melrose, and
therefore, in all probability, considerably earlier than John Morow’s
time.
We observe that Mr. Chalmers considers the choir and presbytery of
Melrose, in which a strong similarity to perpendicular work is
perceptible, to be of the time of James IV., and sarcastically remarks
on what he considers the unworthy exaltation of the king and his queen
to the place of honour on the apex of the east gable of a building
dedicated to God. But this is an entire assumption. There is no proof
that these figures represent James IV. and Queen Margaret Tudor. The
figures in the east gable appear to us to represent the coronation of
the Blessed Virgin, a frequent subject in similar positions.
[Illustration: FIG. 797.--Boss from York Minster.[140]]
We have already remarked on the similarity of much of the work at
Melrose to that of York Minster, and there occurs in one of the bosses
of the latter a representation of the coronation of the Blessed Virgin
(Fig. 797), in which the figures are almost identical in every respect
with those in the east gable of Melrose choir. The attitude is precisely
the same in both. At York, the Saviour is represented as having a beard
and long flowing hair. He is crowned, and holds up the right hand in
benediction, while in the left hand he supports the globe. The Virgin
holds her hands palm to palm, in the attitude of adoration, while an
angel places the crown on her head, and on the other side an angel
throws the censer. Another similar example from Dore Abbey is shown in
Fig. 798.[141]
The figures at Melrose are somewhat wasted by exposure, but a comparison
of the above sketches with that of the east gable (Fig. 774) will show
that, while there is no ground for the assumption that the latter
represents James IV. and Queen Margaret, there is every reason to
believe that it personifies the more appropriate subject of the
coronation of the Blessed Virgin. In the series of niches on each side
there still remain kneeling figures of adoring angels, which, while most
appropriate to the latter subject, would be quite out of place in the
former.
[Illustration: FIG. 798.--Boss from Dore Abbey.]
Mr Chalmers gives some interesting details and observations regarding
the chapels in the east aisle of the transept. He points out that these
were probably dedicated to the saints whose statues stand, or stood, on
the west side of the transept, opposite each chapel. Thus, in the north
transept, the chapels would be those of St. Peter and St. Paul, whose
statues still survive in the west wall; while those in the south
transept would be dedicated to St. Andrew and St. John. Mr. Chalmers
suggests that the statue of St. Andrew (see Fig. 769), which previously
stood opposite his chapel in the south transept, was removed and placed
in a niche in one of the south buttresses, the pedestal being heightened
to receive it, as the statue was too short for the niche. The south
chapel of the transept he believed to be that of St. John. John Morow’s
tablet is opposite this chapel, and his prayer to “Sweet St. John” is,
therefore, most appropriate. Mr. Chalmers points out that the chapels at
the east end of Glasgow Cathedral are dedicated to the same saints and
in the above order.
[Illustration: Melrose Abbey.]